[Senate Hearing 108-158]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-158
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2799/S. 1585
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Department of State
Nondepartmental Witnesses
Securities and Exchange Commission
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
85-911 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
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
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. 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
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Kevin Linskey
Katherine Hennessey
Dennis Balkham
Jill Shapiro Long
Lila Helms (Minority)
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
Chad Schulken (Minority)
Administrative Support
Jessica Roberts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Page
Department of State: Office of the Secretary..................... 1
Thursday, March 20, 2003
Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 49
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General............ 103
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Securities and Exchange Commission............................... 205
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation........... 223
Departmental Witnesses: The Judiciary............................ 251
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 279
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:58 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hollings, Leahy, and
Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
opening statement of senator judd gregg
Senator Gregg. Let me begin by thanking Secretary Powell
for taking the time to appear before the Subcommittee on
Commerce, State, Justice of the Appropriations Committee, which
has the jurisdiction over the State Department appropriations.
I offered the Secretary the opportunity of taking a pass on
this hearing, given the situation in which we find ourselves
right now relative to diplomatic activity. But he was still
generous enough to be willing to take some time to come up
here, which I do greatly appreciate. And I know Senator
Hollings also appreciates his commitment to the process, the
appropriations process.
We have said to the Secretary that we will get him out of
here on a prompt time frame, certainly no later than 11:30,
hopefully even earlier. So we are going to forego opening
statements on our part, turn to the Secretary and have his
opening statement. And we do have a vote at 10:30. So we may
stagger the questioning here. But then we will go to questions.
Mr. Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SECRETARY POWELL
Secretary Powell. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a great pleasure to be back before the committee. I do
thank you, also, for giving me a hall pass, if I had needed one
today. It is a busy time for us in the diplomatic community. I
will be heading up to New York this afternoon to work with my
colleagues at the United Nations. But I really did want to be
here because it is also an important part of my job to make
sure that I present to the Congress our budget request and then
appear to testify for that budget request, because the quality
of our diplomacy depends on whether or not we get the support
we need for the wonderful men and women of the State Department
and for the facilities and other items that we need to make
sure we can do our job in the most effective way.
I do have a prepared statement for the record, which I
would offer, Mr. Chairman. And I would summarize that very
briefly.
Senator Gregg. That will be put in the record.
Secretary Powell. I am pleased to appear before you to
testify in support of the President's International Affairs
Budget for fiscal year 2004. The funding request for 2004 for
the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs
agencies is, overall, $28.5 billion. I have given you a great
deal of detail on this request in my written statement. And I
hope you will find it useful, as you go through your
deliberations.
The President's budget will allow the United States to
target security and economic assistance to sustain key
countries supporting us in the war on terrorism and helping us
to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The
budget will help us launch the Millennium Challenge Account, a
new partnership generating support that will go to countries
that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage
economic freedom.
It will also strengthen the United States and global
commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS and alleviating human
hardships. It will allow us to combat illegal drugs in the
Andean Region of South America, as well as bolster democracy in
one of that region's most important countries, Colombia.
Finally, it will reinforce America's world-class diplomatic
force, focusing on the people, places, and tools needed to
promote our foreign policies around the world.
I am particularly proud of that last goal, Mr. Chairman,
because, as you know, for the past 2 years I have concentrated
on each aspect of my responsibilities, as foreign policy
advisor to the President and Chairman and CEO of the Department
of State. What you need in a large organization is to have the
very best people come in and, once they are in, to take care of
them.
So we are asking for your full support of our Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative. For 2 years, we have been hiring for the
first time in years. We will hire, with this budget request,
399 more professionals to help the President carry out the
Nation's foreign policy. This hiring will bring us to the
1,100-plus new Foreign and Civil Service officers we set out to
hire when I first came into the job 2-plus years ago.
I thank this committee and I thank the Congress for the
support that it has provided, not only for our Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative, but also for our overall operating
accounts over the last several years.
Second, I promised to bring state-of-the-art communications
capability to the Department, because people who cannot
communicate rapidly and effectively in today's globalizing
world cannot carry out our foreign policy. We are doing very
well in that regard in both unclassified and classified
communications capability, including desktop access to the
Internet for every man and woman in the Department. We are
moving rapidly. We are almost there. The $157 million budget
request before you will put us there.
Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I wanted to sweep the
slate clean and completely revamp the way we construct our
Embassies and other overseas buildings, as well as improve on
the manner in which we secure our men and women who occupy
those facilities. That last task is a long-term, almost never-
ending one, particularly in this time of heightened terrorist
activities. But we are well on the way to implementing both the
construction and security tasks in a better way, in a less
expensive way, and in a way that subsequent CEOs of the
Department can continue and improve upon.
I am very happy at the work we have done in Embassy
construction and security over the past few years under the
leadership of General Williams, who you all have come to know.
I need your continued support for the $1.5 billion for Embassy
security and construction and the $646 million in D&CP funding
for worldwide security upgrades.
Mr. Chairman, as the principal foreign policy advisor to
the President, I have budget priorities on that side of my
portfolio, as well. So let me highlight a few of our key
foreign policy priorities before I stop and take your
questions.
I might note that one of the successes of our foreign
policy was the Moscow Treaty, which reduced significantly the
number of strategic offensive weapons held by the United States
and the Russian Federation. That treaty is now on the Senate
floor. I hope that it will be acted on promptly. I encourage
your support for this treaty. With a little bit of luck and
with my fingers crossed, it might even be voted on today, when
remaining amendments, proposed amendments, have been dealt
with.
The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes several initiatives to
advance U.S. national security interests and preserve American
leadership. The fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations budget that
funds programs for the Department of State, USAID, and other
foreign agencies is $18.8 billion. Today, our number one
priority is to fight and win the global war on terrorism. The
budget furthers this goal by providing economic, military, and
democracy assistance to key foreign partners and allies,
including $4.7 billion to those countries that have joined us
in the war on terrorism.
Of this amount, the President's budget provides $657
million for Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million
for Pakistan, $255 million for Turkey, $136 million for
Indonesia, and $87 million for the Philippines. In Afghanistan,
the funding will be used to fulfill our commitment to rebuild
Afghanistan's road network. In addition, it will help establish
security in the country through the creation of a national
military, as well as a national police force. Our assistance
will establish broad-based and accountable governance
throughout democratic institutions in Afghanistan by fostering
an active civil society.
I am very pleased at what we have been able to do in
Afghanistan over the last 1\1/2\ years. Some ask whether the
glass is half empty or half full. Well, there is still a long
way to go in Afghanistan. But, we should be very proud of what
we have been able to accomplish. President Karzai was here
earlier this week, and we had good discussions with him.
When you consider we came from nothing, from zero, from
nothing, from a ruined country to a country that now has a
representative form of government--they have spoken out for the
leader that they want to have as their president. They are
getting ready for an election next year. A constitution is well
underway. Roads are under construction. Two million refugees
have returned. Two million people that have been living in
other lands, in Iran, in Pakistan, have voted with their feet
for this new country and for the leadership that it is under.
They are also counting on our full support to rebuild that
country. I think we should be very proud of what we have done.
I also want to emphasize our efforts to decrease threats
posed by terrorist groups, rogue states, and other nonstate
actors with regards to weapons of mass destruction and related
technology. To achieve this goal, we must strengthen
partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing
with the threat of terrorism and in resolving regional
conflicts. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests support for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund. The budget also
increases funding for overseas Export Controls and Border
Security and supports additional funding for Science Centers
and Bio-Chem Redirection Programs.
Funding increases requested for these programs will help us
prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands
of terrorist groups or states by preventing their movement
across borders and destroying or safeguarding known quantities
of weapons or source material.
The fiscal year 2004 budget also promotes international
peace and prosperity by launching the most innovative approach
to foreign assistance in more than 40 years. The new Millennium
Challenge Account, an independent Government corporation funded
at $1.3 billion, will redefine development aid. As President
Bush told African leaders meeting in Mauritius earlier this
year, this aid will go to those nations that encourage economic
freedom, root out corruption, put in place the rule of law,
respect the rights of their people, and have made a firm
commitment to democracy.
Moreover, the President's budget request offers hope and a
helping hand to countries facing health catastrophes, poverty
and despair, and humanitarian disasters. The budget includes
more than $1 billion to meet the needs of refugees and
internally displaced peoples.
The fiscal year 2004 budget also provides more than $1.3
billion to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, the worst
crisis facing this world. The President's total budget for HIV/
AIDS is over $2 billion, which includes the first year's
funding for the new emergency plan for HIV/AIDS relief
announced by the President in his State of the Union address.
This funding will target 14 of the hardest hit countries,
especially in Africa and the Caribbean.
The budget also includes almost $500 million for Colombia.
This funding will support Colombian President Uribe's unified
campaign against terrorists and the drug trade that fuels their
activities. The aim is to secure democracy, extend security,
and restore economic prosperity to Colombia, and prevent the
narco-terrorists from spreading instability to the broader
Andean Region.
Accomplishing these goals requires more than simply funding
for Colombia. Therefore, our total Andean Counterdrug
Initiative is $731 million. Critical components of this effort
include resumption of the Airbridge Denial Program to stop
internal and cross-border aerial trafficking in illicit drugs,
stepped up eradication and alternative development efforts, and
technical assistance to strengthen Colombia's police and
judicial institutions.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance
America's interests around the world, we need the dollars in
the President's budget for fiscal year 2004. We need the
dollars under both of my hats, as principal foreign policy
advisor to the President, as well as CEO of the Department of
State.
PREPARED STATEMENT
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will stop and be as responsive
as I can to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin L. Powell
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you to testify in support of the President's International
Affairs Budget for fiscal year 2004. Funding requested for fiscal year
2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs
agencies is $28.5 billion.
The President's Budget will allow the United States to:
--Target security and economic assistance to sustain key countries
supporting us in the war on terrorism and helping us to stem
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
--Launch the Millennium Challenge Account--a new partnership
generating support to countries that rule justly, invest in
their people, and encourage economic freedom;
--Strengthen the U.S. and global commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS and
alleviating humanitarian hardships;
--Combat illegal drugs in the Andean Region of South America, as well
as bolster democracy in one of that region's most important
countries, Colombia; and
--Reinforce America's world-class diplomatic force, focusing on the
people, places, and tools needed to promote our foreign
policies around the world.
I am particularly proud of the last bullet, Mr. Chairman, because
for the past two years I have concentrated on each of my jobs--primary
foreign policy advisor to the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the State Department.
Under my CEO hat, we have been reinforcing our diplomatic force for
two years and we will continue in fiscal year 2004. We will hire 399
more professionals to help the President carry out the nation's foreign
policy. This hiring will bring us to the 1,100-plus new foreign and
civil service officers we set out to hire over the first three years to
bring the Department's personnel back in line with its diplomatic
workload. Moreover, completion of these hires will allow us the
flexibility to train and educate all of our officers as they should be
trained and educated. So I am proud of that accomplishment and want to
thank you for helping me bring it about.
In addition, I promised to bring state-of-the-art communications
capability to the Department--because people who can't communicate
rapidly and effectively in today's globalizing world can't carry out
our foreign policy. We are approaching our goal in that regard as well.
In both unclassified and classified communications capability,
including desk-top access to the Internet for every man and woman at
State, we are there by the end of 2003. The budget before you will
sustain these gains and continue our information technology
modernization effort. Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I wanted to
sweep the slate clean and completely revamp the way we construct our
embassies and other overseas buildings, as well as improve the way we
secure our men and women who occupy them. As you well know, that last
task is a long-term, almost never-ending one, particularly in this time
of heightened terrorist activities. But we are well on the way to
implementing both the construction and the security tasks in a better
way, in a less expensive way, and in a way that subsequent CEOs can
continue and improve on.
Mr. Chairman, since this subcommittee's oversight responsibilities
are primarily concerned with my CEO hat, let me give you key details
with respect to these three main priorities, as well as tell you about
other initiatives under my CEO hat:
the ceo responsibilities: state department and related agencies
The President's fiscal year 2004 discretionary request for the
Department of State and Related Agencies is $8.497 billion. The
requested funding will allow us to:
--Continue initiatives to recruit, hire, train, and deploy the right
work force. The budget request includes $97 million to complete
the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative by hiring 399 additional
foreign affairs professionals. Foreign policy is carried out
through our people, and rebuilding America's diplomatic
readiness in staffing will ensure that the Department can
respond to crises and emerging foreign policy priorities. This
is the third year of funding for this initiative, which will
provide a total of 1,158 new staff for the Department of State.
--Continue to put information technology in the service of diplomacy.
The budget request includes $157 million to sustain the
investments made over the last two years to provide classified
connectivity to every post that requires it and to expand
desktop access to the Internet for State Department employees.
Combined with $114 million in estimated Expedited Passport
Fees, a total of $271 million will be available for information
technology investments, including beginning a major
initiative--SMART--that will overhaul the outdated systems for
cables, messaging, information sharing, and document archiving.
--Continue to upgrade and enhance our security worldwide. The budget
request includes $646.7 million for programs to enhance the
security of our diplomatic facilities and personnel serving
abroad and for hiring 85 additional security and support
professionals to sustain the Department's Worldwide Security
Upgrades program.
--Continue to upgrade the security of our overseas facilities. The
budget request includes $1.514 billion to fund major security-
related construction projects and address the major physical
security and rehabilitation needs of embassies and consulates
around the world. The request includes $761.4 million for
construction of secure embassy compounds in seven countries and
$128.3 million for construction of a new embassy building in
Berlin.
--The budget also supports management improvements to the overseas
buildings program and the Overseas Building Operations (OBO)
long-range plan. The budget proposes a Capital Security Cost
Sharing Program that allocates the capital costs of new
overseas facilities to all U.S. Government agencies on the
basis of the number of their authorized overseas positions.
This program will serve two vital purposes: (1) to accelerate
construction of new embassy compounds and (2) to encourage
Federal agencies to evaluate their overseas positions more
carefully. In doing so, it will further the President's
Management Agenda initiative to rightsize the official American
presence abroad. The modest surcharge to the cost of stationing
an American employee overseas will not undermine vital overseas
work, but it will encourage more efficient management of
personnel and taxpayer funds.
--Continue to enhance the Border Security Program. The budget request
includes $736 million in Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fee
revenues for continuous improvements in consular systems,
processes, and programs in order to protect U.S. borders
against the illegal entry of individuals who would do us harm.
--Meet our obligations to international organizations. Fulfilling
U.S. commitments is vital to building coalitions and gaining
support for U.S. interests and policies in the war against
terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The
budget request includes $1 billion to fund U.S. assessments to
44 international organizations, including $71.4 million to
support renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
--Support obligations to international peacekeeping activities. The
budget request includes $550.2 million to pay projected U.N.
peacekeeping assessments. These peacekeeping activities ensure
continued American leadership in shaping the international
community's response to developments that threaten
international peace and stability.
Continue to eliminate support for terrorists and thus deny them
safe haven through our ongoing public diplomacy activities, our
educational and cultural exchange programs, and international
broadcasting. The budget request includes $296.9 million for public
diplomacy, including information and cultural programs carried out by
overseas missions and supported by public diplomacy personnel in our
regional and functional bureaus. These resources are used to engage,
inform, and influence foreign publics and broaden dialogue between
American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.
The budget request also includes $345.3 million for educational and
cultural exchange programs that build mutual understanding and develop
friendly relations between America and the peoples of the world. These
activities establish the trust, confidence, and international
cooperation with other countries that sustain and advance the full
range of American national interests.
The budget request includes $100 million for education and cultural
exchanges for States of the Former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern
Europe, which were previously funded under the FREEDOM Support Act and
Support for East European Democracy (SEED) accounts.
As a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, I want to take
this opportunity to highlight to you the BBG's pending budget request
for $563.5 million. Funding will advance international broadcasting
efforts to support the war on terrorism, including initiation of the
Middle East Television Network.
Mr. Chairman, I know that your committee staff will go over this
statement with a fine-tooth comb and I know too that they prefer an
account-by-account laydown. So here it is:
Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP)
The fiscal year 2004 request for D&CP, the State Department's chief
operating account, totals $4.164 billion.
D&CP supports the diplomatic activities and programs that
constitute the first line of offense against threats to the security
and prosperity of the American people. Together with Machine Readable
Visa and other fees, the account funds the operating expenses and
infrastructure necessary for carrying out U.S. foreign policy in more
than 260 locations around the world.
The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request provides $3.517 billion for
ongoing operations--a net increase of $269 million over the fiscal year
2003 level. Increased funding will enable the State Department to
advance national interests effectively through improved diplomatic
readiness, particularly in human resources.
The request completes the Department's three-year Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative to put the right people with the right skills in
the right place at the right time. New D&CP funding in fiscal year 2004
of $97 million will allow the addition of 399 professionals, providing
a total of 1,158 new staff from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2004.
The fiscal year 2004 D&CP request also provides $646.7 million for
Worldwide Security Upgrades--an increase of $97.3 million over last
year. This total includes $504.6 million to continue worldwide security
programs for guard protection, physical security equipment and
technical support, information and system security, and security
personnel and training. It also includes $43.4 million to expand the
perimeter security enhancement program for 232 posts and $98.7 million
for improvements in domestic and overseas protection programs,
including 85 additional agents and other security professionals.
Capital Investment Fund (CIF)
The fiscal year 2004 request provides $157 million for the CIF to
assure that the investments made in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year
2003 keep pace with increased demand from users for functionality and
speed.
Requested funding includes $15 million for the State Messaging and
Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART). The SMART initiative will replace
outdated systems for cables and messages with a unified system that
adds information sharing and document archiving.
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM)
The fiscal year 2004 request for ESCM is $1.514 billion. This
total--an increase of $259.1 million over the fiscal year 2003 level--
reflects the Administration's continuing commitment to protect U.S.
Government personnel serving abroad, improve the security posture of
facilities overseas, and address serious deficiencies in the State
Department's overseas infrastructure.
For the ongoing ESCM budget, the Administration is requesting
$524.7 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, and management of the
overseas buildings program.
For Worldwide Security Construction, the Administration is
requesting $761.4 million for the next tranche of security-driven
construction projects to replace high-risk facilities. Funding will
support the construction of secure embassies in seven countries--
Algeria, Burma, Ghana, Indonesia, Panama, Serbia, and Togo. In
addition, the requested funding will provide new on-compound buildings
for USAID in Ghana, Jamaica, and Nigeria.
The ESCM request includes $100 million to strengthen compound
security at vulnerable posts.
The request also includes $128.3 million to construct the new U.S.
embassy building in Berlin.
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (ECE)
The fiscal year 2004 request of $345.3 million for ECE maintains
funding for exchanges at the fiscal year 2003 level of $244 million and
adds $100 million for projects for Eastern Europe and the States of the
Former Soviet Union previously funded from Foreign Operations
appropriations.
Authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961 (Fulbright-Hays Act), as amended, exchanges are strategic
activities that 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 $141 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 $73 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.
This request provides $100 million for exchanges funded in the past
from the FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) and Support for East European
Democracy (SEED) accounts.
This request also provides $31 million for exchanges support. This
is a straight-line projection of the fiscal year 2003 level.
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
The fiscal year 2004 request for CIO of $1.010 billion provides
funding for U.S. assessed contributions, consistent with U.S. statutory
restrictions, to 44 international organizations to further U.S.
economic, political, social, and cultural interests.
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 that include the
World Health Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
The budget request provides $71.4 million to support renewed U.S.
membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO contributes to peace and security in the
world by promoting collaboration among nations through education,
science, culture and communication and by furthering intercultural
understanding and universal respect for justice, rule of law, human
rights, and fundamental freedoms, notably a free press.
Membership in international organizations benefits the United
States by building coalitions and pursuing multilateral programs that
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.
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
The administration is requesting $550.2 million for CIPA in fiscal
year 2004. This funding level will allow the United States to pay its
share of assessed U.N. peacekeeping budgets, fulfilling U.S.
commitments and avoiding increased U.N. arrears.
The U.N. peacekeeping appropriation serves U.S. interests in
Europe, Africa and the Middle East, where U.N. peacekeeping missions
assist in ending conflicts, restoring peace and strengthening regional
stability.
U.N. peacekeeping missions leverage U.S. political, military and
financial assets through the authority of the U.N. Security Council and
the participation of other states that provide funds and peacekeepers
for conflicts around the world.
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BBG totals $563.5
million.
The overall request provides $525.2 million for U.S. Government
non-military international broadcasting operations through the
International Broadcasting Operations (IBO) account. This account funds
operations of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and all related program
delivery and support activities.
The IBO request includes funding to advance broadcasting efforts
related to the war on terrorism. The request includes $30 million to
initiate the Middle East Television Network--a new Arabic-language
satellite TV network that, once operational, will have the potential to
reach vast audiences in the Middle East. The request also includes
funding to double VOA Indonesian radio programming, significantly
increase television programming in Indonesia, and expand BBG audience
development efforts.
The IBO request reflects the shifting of priorities away from the
predominantly Cold War focus on Central and Eastern Europe to
broadcasting in the Middle East and Central Asia. Funds are being
redirected to programs in these regions through the elimination of
broadcasting to countries in the former Eastern Bloc that have
demonstrated significant advances in democracy and press freedoms and
are new or soon-to-be NATO and European Union Members.
The IBO request also reflects anticipated efficiencies that achieve
a five-percent reduction in funding for administration and management
in fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2004 request also provides $26.9 million through
Broadcasting to Cuba (OCB) for continuing Radio Marti and TV Marti
operations, including salary and inflation increases, to support
current schedules.
The fiscal year 2004 request further provides $11.4 million for
Broadcasting Capital Improvements to maintain the BBG's worldwide
transmission network. The request includes $2.9 million to maintain and
improve security of U.S. broadcasting transmission facilities overseas.
That finishes the State and Related Agencies part of the
President's Budget. But before I stop and take your questions, let me
give you an overview of the rest of our budget for fiscal year 2004,
the Foreign Affairs part. You are all members of the larger
Appropriations Committee and, in that capacity, I hope that you will
strongly support this part of our budget also.
FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES: FUNDING AMERICA'S DIPLOMACY
AROUND THE WORLD
The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes several initiatives to advance
U.S. national security interests and preserve American leadership. The
fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations budget that funds programs for the
Department of State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8
billion. Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the global
war on terrorism. The budget furthers this goal by providing economic,
military, and democracy assistance to key foreign partners and allies,
including $4.7 billion to countries that have joined us in the war on
terrorism.
The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by
launching the most innovative approach to U.S. foreign assistance in
more than forty years. The new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an
independent government corporation funded at $1.3 billion will redefine
``aid''. As President Bush told African leaders meeting in Mauritius
recently, this aid will go to ``nations that encourage economic
freedom, root out corruption, and respect the rights of their people.''
Moreover, this budget offers hope and a helping hand to countries
facing health catastrophes, poverty and despair, and humanitarian
disasters. It provides $1.345 billion to combat the global HIV/AIDS
epidemic, more than $1 billion to meet the needs of refugees and
internally displaced peoples, $200 million in emergency food assistance
to support dire famine needs, and $100 million for an emerging crises
fund to allow swift responses to complex foreign crises. Mr. Chairman,
let me give you some details.
The United States is successfully prosecuting the global war on
terrorism on a number of fronts. We are providing extensive assistance
to states on the front lines of the anti-terror struggle. Working with
our international partners bilaterally and through multilateral
organizations, we have frozen more than $110 million in terrorist
assets, launched new initiatives to secure global networks of commerce
and communication, and significantly increased the cooperation of our
law enforcement and intelligence communities. Afghanistan is no longer
a haven for al-Qaeda. We are now working with the Afghan Authority,
other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to rebuild
Afghanistan. Around the world we are combating the unholy alliance of
drug traffickers and terrorists who threaten the internal stability of
countries. We are leading the international effort to prevent weapons
of mass destruction from falling into the hands of those who would do
harm to us and others. At the same time, we are rejuvenating and
expanding our public diplomacy efforts worldwide.
Assistance to Frontline States
The fiscal year 2004 International Affairs budget provides
approximately $4.7 billion in assistance to the Frontline States, which
have joined with us in the war on terrorism. This funding will provide
crucial assistance to enable these countries to strengthen their
economies, internal counter-terrorism capabilities and border controls.
Of this amount, the President's Budget provides $657 million for
Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, $255
million for Turkey, $136 million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the
Philippines. In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our
commitment to rebuild Afghanistan's road network; establish security
through a national military and national police force, including
counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics components; establish broad-
based and accountable governance through democratic institutions and an
active civil society; ensure a peace dividend for the Afghan people
through economic reconstruction; and provide humanitarian assistance to
sustain returning refugees and displaced persons. United States
assistance will continue to be coordinated with the Afghan government,
the United Nations, and other international donors.
The State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program will
continue to provide frontline states a full complement of training
courses, such as a course on how to conduct a post-terrorist attack
investigation or how to respond to a WMD event. The budget will also
fund additional equipment grants to sustain the skills and capabilities
acquired in the ATA courses. It will support as well in-country
training programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
Central Asia and Freedom Support Act Nations
In fiscal year 2004, over $157 million in Freedom Support Act (FSA)
funding will go to assistance programs in the Central Asian states. The
fiscal year 2004 budget continues to focus FSA funds to programs in
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, recognizing that Central Asia is
of strategic importance to U.S. foreign policy objectives. The fiscal
year 2004 assistance level for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is
30 percent above 2003. Assistance to these countries has almost doubled
from pre-September 11th levels. These funds will support civil society
development, small business promotion, conflict reduction, and economic
reform in the region. These efforts are designed to promote economic
development and strengthen the rule of law in order to reduce the
appeal of extremist movements and stem the flow of illegal drugs that
finance terrorist activities.
Funding levels and country distributions for the FSA nations
reflect shifting priorities in the region. For example, after more than
10 years of high levels of assistance, it is time to begin the process
of graduating countries in this region from economic assistance, as we
have done with countries in Eastern Europe that have made sufficient
progress in the transition to market-based democracies. U.S. economic
assistance to Russia and Ukraine will begin phasing down in fiscal year
2004, a decrease of 32 percent from 2003, moving these countries
towards graduation.
Combating Illegal Drugs and Stemming Narco-terrorism
The President's request for $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative includes $463 million for Colombia. An additional $110
million in military assistance to Colombia will support Colombian
President Uribe's unified campaign against terrorists and the drug
trade that fuels their activities. The aim is to secure democracy,
extend security, and restore economic prosperity to Colombia and
prevent the narco-terrorists from spreading instability to the broader
Andean region. Critical components of this effort include resumption of
the Airbridge Denial program to stop internal and cross-border aerial
trafficking in illicit drugs, stepped up eradication and alternative
development efforts, and technical assistance to strengthen Colombia's
police and judicial institutions.
Halting Access of Rogue States and Terrorists to Weapons of Mass
Destruction
Decreasing the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states, and
other non-state actors requires halting the spread of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) and related technology. To achieve this goal, we must
strengthen partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing
with the threat of terrorism and resolving regional conflicts.
The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $35 million for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), more than double the
fiscal year 2003 request, increases funding for overseas Export
Controls and Border Security (EXBS) to $40 million, and supports
additional funding for Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection
Programs.
Funding increases requested for the NDF and EXBS programs seek to
prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of
terrorist groups or states by preventing their movement across borders
and destroying or safeguarding known quantities of weapons or source
material. The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection programs support
the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists and
engineers in peaceful scientific activities, providing them an
alternative to marketing their skills to states or groups of concern.
Millennium Challenge Account
The fiscal year 2004 Budget request of $1.3 billion for the new
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as a government corporation fulfills
the President's March 2002 pledge to create a new bilateral assistance
program, markedly different from existing models. This budget is a huge
step towards the President's commitment of $5 billion in annual funding
for the MCA by 2006, a 50 percent increase in core development
assistance.
The MCA supplement U.S. commitments to humanitarian assistance and
existing development aid programs funded and implemented by USAID. It
will assist developing countries that make sound policy decisions and
demonstrate solid performance on economic growth and reducing poverty.
--MCA funds will go only to selected developing countries that
demonstrate a commitment to sound policies--based on clear,
concrete and objective criteria. To become eligible for MCA
resources, countries must demonstrate their commitment to
economic opportunity, investing in people, and good governance.
--Resources will be available through agreements with recipient
countries that specify a limited number of clear measurable
goals, activities, and benchmarks, and financial accountability
standards.
The MCA will be administered by a new government corporation
designed to support innovative strategies and to ensure accountability
for measurable results. The corporation will be supervised by a Board
of Directors composed of Cabinet level officials and chaired by the
Secretary of State. Personnel will be drawn from a variety of
government agencies and non-government institutions and serve limited-
term appointments.
In fiscal year 2004, countries eligible to borrow from the
International Development Association (IDA), and which have per capita
incomes below $1,435, (the historical IDA cutoff) will be considered.
In 2005, all countries with incomes below $1,435 will be considered. In
2006, all countries with incomes up to $2,975 (the current World Bank
cutoff for lower middle income countries) will be eligible.
The selection process will use 16 indicators to assess national
performance--these indicators being relative to governing justly,
investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. These indicators
were chosen because of the quality and objectivity of their data,
country coverage, public availability, and correlation with growth and
poverty reduction. The results of a review of the indicators will be
used by the MCA Board of Directors to make a final recommendation to
the President on a list of MCA countries.
The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative
The President's Budget includes $145 million for the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI). This initiative gives us a framework and
funding for working with the Arab world to expand educational and
economic opportunities, empower women, and strengthen civil society and
the rule of law. The peoples and governments of the Middle East face
daunting human challenges. Their economies are stagnant and unable to
provide jobs for millions of young people entering the workplace each
year. Too many of their governments appear closed and unresponsive to
the needs of their citizens. And their schools are not equipping
students to succeed in today's globalizing world. With the programs of
the MEPI, we will work with Arab governments, groups, and individuals
to bridge the jobs gap with economic reform, business investment, and
private sector development; close the freedom gap with projects to
strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and lift the
voices of women; and bridge the knowledge gap with better schools and
more opportunities for higher education. The U.S.-Middle East
Partnership Initiative is an investment in a more stable, peaceful,
prosperous, and democratic Arab world.
Fighting the Global AIDS Pandemic
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues the Administration's
commitment to combat HIV/AIDS and to help bring care and treatment to
infected people overseas. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed 23 million
of the 63 million people it has infected to date, and left 14 million
orphans worldwide. President Bush has made fighting this pandemic a
priority of U.S. foreign policy.
The President believes the global community can--and must--do more
to halt the advance of the pandemic, and that the United States should
lead by example. Thus, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
signals a further, massive increase in resources to combat the HIV/AIDs
pandemic. As described in the State of the Union, the President is
committing to provide a total of $15 billion over the next five years
to turn the tide in the war on HIV/AIDs, beginning with $2.0 billion in
the fiscal year 2004 budget request and rising thereafter. These funds
will be targeted on the hardest hit countries, especially Africa and
the Caribbean with the objective of achieving dramatic on-the-ground
results. This new dramatic commitment is reflected in the
Administration's $2.0 billion fiscal year 2004 budget request, which
includes:
--State Department--$450 million;
--USAID--$895 million, including $100 million for the Global Fund and
$150 million for the International Mother & Child HIV
Prevention; and
--HHS/CDC/NIH--$690 million, including $100 million for the Global
Fund and $150 million for the International Mother & Child HIV
Prevention.
In order to ensure accountability for results, the President has
asked me to establish at State a new Special Coordinator for
International HIV/AIDS Assistance. The Special Coordinator will work
for me and be responsible for coordinating all international HIV/AIDS
programs and efforts of the agencies that implement them.
Hunger, Famine, and Other Emergencies
Food Aid.--Historically the United States has been the largest
donor of assistance for victims of protracted and emergency food
crises. In 2003, discretionary funding for food aid increased from $864
million to $1.19 billion. That level will be enhanced significantly in
2004 with two new initiatives: a Famine Fund and an emerging crises
fund to address complex emergencies.
--Famine Fund.--The fiscal year 2004 budget includes a new $200
million fund with flexible authorities to provide emergency
food, grants or support to meet dire needs on a case-by-case
basis. This commitment reflects more than a 15 percent increase
in U.S. food assistance.
--Emerging Crises Fund.--The budget also requests $100 million for a
new account that will allow the Administration to respond
swiftly and effectively to prevent or resolve unforeseen
complex foreign crises. This account will provide a mechanism
for the President to support actions to advance American
interests, including to prevent or respond to foreign
territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that
pose threats to regional and international peace and acts of
ethnic cleansing, mass killing and genocide.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, to advance America's
interests around the world we need the dollars in the President's
Budget for fiscal year 2004. We need the dollars under both of my
hats--CEO and principal foreign policy advisor. The times we live in
are troubled to be sure, but I believe there is every bit as much
opportunity in the days ahead as there is danger. American leadership
is essential to dealing with both the danger and the opportunity. With
regard to the Department of State, the President's fiscal year 2004
budget is crucial to the exercise of that leadership.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
REMARKS OF SENATOR GREGG
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that
statement.
Let me begin by saying that we have enjoyed working with
you and your Department. I know that Senator Hollings, who I
succeeded as chair here, has aggressively pursued many of the
initiatives which you have outlined in his original remarks.
And I intend to continue Senator Hollings' processes there,
initiatives in the area, for example, of gearing up the
Diplomatic Corps. We will certainly be funding that.
One of my other concerns is the Consular Affairs area. We
have to not only gear up and give the Consular Affairs folks
status, but we also have to give them decent working places, so
that when people come into our Embassies, they feel comfortable
and not as though they are being treated as second class
individuals. They should have a nice atmosphere. And I think
that this will help the visa process, also.
And I also am concerned about protecting our people
overseas, not only the Foreign Service Officers and Consular
Affairs folks, but their families, especially at places where
they naturally congregate, such as American schools. As you
know, we put $15 million into the budget to address that. And
we are looking for other ideas that the Department may have in
that area specifically.
I want to congratulate General Williams for his efforts. I
believe that after a number of years of out-of-control costs,
driven in large part by a need to respond to very serious
security issues at our Embassies, the issue is being
aggressively and effectively addressed by General Williams.
I would say this, however: I am concerned that we are
building fortresses that have no architectural identity with
the communities that they are in. And I hope that in obtaining
security that we will not leave behind the importance of having
American presence that does not look like a fortress, that our
buildings start to take on some architectural identity with the
countries that they are in. I think I would like to get into
that issue, but not at this time.
What I would like to address now is a couple more larger
issues which are current to the period. Let me read you a
couple quotes from Osama bin Laden. In a Time magazine article
on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, Osama bin Laden
stated, ``Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a
religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I
thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire
these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for
Muslims not to try to possess weapons that would prevent
infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.''
He went on to say in another quote, ``We, with Allah's
help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to
be rewarded to comply with Allah's orders to kill the Americans
and to plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians
and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who can do
it in any country which it is possible to do it in.''
What, today, is to stop Saddam Hussein from delivering to
this criminal individual, who has already participated in the
murder of thousands of Americans, those weapons of mass
destruction?
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND WEAPONS
Secretary Powell. Nothing is prepared to stop him today, if
he chooses to do so. We want to take away his option of doing
so by disarming the Iraqi regime and Saddam Hussein. The
chilling words you just read, Mr. Chairman, are from somebody
who is committed to strike us again and again and again; let
there be no doubt about it, he will use airplanes filled with
fuel. He will use car bombs. As he said in those quotations, if
he had weapons of mass destruction, he would use them.
Should there be a doubt in anyone's mind that if Osama bin
Laden or other terrorists like Osama bin Laden had access to
chemical or biological or nuclear weapons, they would use them?
If there was a doubt in anyone's mind, that doubt should have
been erased on 9/11. That is why after 9/11 we realized the
nature of the conflict we were now in. We had to deal with the
Taliban in Afghanistan. We had to break up al-Qaeda. You saw
the recent arrest over the weekend of the gentleman who was the
brains of the organization that struck us on 9/11. We have to
go after not only these individuals, but also the potential
sources of their weaponry.
That is why we redoubled our effort in making it clear to
the United Nations that we could no longer allow its
resolutions to be ignored with respect to Iraq, a known
developer of weapons of mass destruction. That is why the
moment we find ourselves in now is a critical moment, where we
are being tested and where the Security Council, the United
Nations, and the international community are being tested. Are
we going to allow an individual, such as Saddam Hussein, to
continue to develop these weapons of mass destruction or
deceive us into believing that he is not, when we know he is,
because it is too hard to face the consequences of dealing with
the truth, and face a situation some years from now when Osama
bin Laden has accomplished the goal he laid out in those
statements, and he has such a weapon, and he got it from Iraq?
We must go after these countries, these rogue nations, that
proliferate and are led by leaders who would strike us and who
have shown in the past they will strike their own neighbors,
strike their own people, do anything to stay in power and
pursue their own agenda. That is the argument I will be taking
to the United Nations this afternoon. This is the time to deal
with this kind of threat, not after we have seen thousands of
people die as a result of the use of one of these horrible
weapons. We cannot allow ourselves to be deterred by false
claims that ``It is all okay. He is complying,'' when he is not
complying but merely deceiving the international community and
trying to keep us from doing what we said we would be prepared
to do last October--excuse me--November, when we passed
Resolution 1441.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. And I want to congratulate you
and the President for pursuing that policy, because I think it
should be obvious to all people, whether we wish to admit it or
not, that we are dealing with a fundamentally evil individual,
not only in Saddam Hussein, but in Osama bin Laden, obviously,
and that the coalescence or the convergence of those two forces
represents a clear, present, and immediate threat to the United
States.
My time is up, and I yield to the ranking member.
VICTORY IN IRAQ
Senator Hollings. Mr. Secretary, I support you, support
your budget. I have some questions about Colombia and General
Williams, the Embassy there at Berlin.
This cost sharing proposal and the funding request for
USAID buildings--the Foreign Operations Subcommittee ranking
member Senator Leahy will be back momentarily--but I cannot get
any money back from him. So we have opposed our State
Department budget funding buildings under another
subcommittees' jurisdiction.
Having said that, I am reading here, I am listening to our
President before the American Enterprise Institute, of a regime
change. I am hearing you yesterday afternoon. And then I am
reading yesterday morning, and I quote, ``General Meyers also
said disarming Iraq would define victory, not capturing or
killing President Saddam Hussein.'' Is General Meyers correct?
Secretary Powell. All of the statements that you made
reference to and the positions you made reference to are
correct.
Senator Hollings. Well, that means then you believe we have
to remove Saddam Hussein, is that not right?
Secretary Powell. Well, in 1998, the previous
administration and the Congress believed that the only way----
Senator Hollings. I am not questioning that.
Secretary Powell. No, no. I just need----
Senator Hollings. I have read----
Secretary Powell. Yes, I am going to come to our position.
But the Congress and the administration at that time, in the
face of the intransigence of Saddam Hussein, his unwillingness
to disarm as a result of previous U.N. resolutions, made a
judgment that we could not solve this problem with that regime
in place. So regime change in 1998 became the policy of
President Clinton's administration. It was to some extent, I
think to a large extent, endorsed by the Congress in laws that
were passed at that time.
When we came into office, we worked to see if there was
some other way of disarming Saddam Hussein. We modified and
strengthened the sanctions policies, so that it was not hurting
the Iraqi people. We worked with our friends and allies to see
if there was some way to disarm him. We finally got to the
point where Resolution 1441 was passed. Resolution 1441 passed
unanimously. It has as its goal the disarmament of Iraq.
However, what we have seen since 1441 was passed is that
Saddam Hussein has still not made that strategic choice to
disarm and allow the inspectors to verify that he is disarming.
So we are reaching the point that was reached by others in
1998, such that it appears the only way perhaps to get him to
disarm is to remove the regime and disarm that nation of its
weapons of mass destruction.
But even at this late date, it is possible to find a
peaceful solution, if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime would
do what it has been asked to do by the international community
for all these many years. But we do not take off the table, of
course, the option of forcible removal of the regime. We have a
large number of American troops that are assembled there to do
that.
But it is the disarmament that is the principal objective.
I think that is the point that General Meyers was trying to
make, when he said the regime will be removed. But whatever
happens to Saddam Hussein, whether he goes into exile or into
irrelevance, we will have a better situation in Iraq when those
weapons of mass destruction are gone.
REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN
Senator Hollings. Well, you and I would agree in a second
that if you removed all the weapons of mass destruction in the
next hour, you would still have to remove Saddam. You could not
just pick up and then leave with General Meyers and say, ``The
job is done.'' I mean, that fellow would start building bombs
all over again. So I guess you and I agree that removing Saddam
Hussein is the mission.
You used the expression ``better way, less expensive way,''
in order to remove him. I was never worried for the last 10, 12
years about any imminent threat from Saddam. We have what you
and I know as the AMLR, the best force, Israel, right there.
They do not have the luxury of calling up and getting a meeting
with the United Nations or asking for monitors. They have to
act in self-defense. And so if there is any imminent threat
really, they would knock it out by 10:30 or 11:00 o'clock this
morning, I can tell you that.
Knowing that, and you used the expression in your major
testimony there about ``a better way, a less expensive way.''
Rather than starting a war and all of these other things to
remove him, Mossad would know where he is. Why not get a hit
team and get rid of him? Why start a war in order to do it?
Secretary Powell. Because I am not sure anybody really
knows where he is. It is easy to say. It is much more difficult
to do. I cannot tell you what Mossad or any other intelligence
agency knows or does not know. This is a man who has spent the
last 30 years putting in place a security system that has as
its sole purpose to keep him in place. The suggestion that if
there was imminent danger, everybody would know where it is and
could hit it by 10:30 this morning, I think, is not quite the
case.
His capabilities are well dispersed. They are hidden. They
are not easy to find. He has had decades of experience in
hiding his activities and diverting the attention of those who
are looking for his prohibited activities.
Senator Hollings. Well, the 3,000 missiles in this same
story that are precision guided, are they guided against
Saddam?
Secretary Powell. I do not know of any way to guide against
a particular individual.
Senator Hollings. Are those military targets alone? Is that
your answer, just the 3,000 missiles?
Secretary Powell. No. My answer is that I do not discuss
targeting that might be conducted by our military authorities.
In the old days, I used to.
Senator Hollings. You were the chairman.
Secretary Powell. But now I do not. I think it is unwise to
do.
Senator Hollings. But you know where they are guided. You
can discuss them. I mean, we have to get the guy. You have to
hit the palaces, as well as the command and control. You know
what I mean. Hit a few Scud sites. In fact, if you have any
good precision guided ones, why not tell the inspectors and let
them take them up?
Secretary Powell. The inspectors do not view as their role
to be part of the U.S. targeting system. If we keep saying all
we have to do is hit the palaces, I can assure you that the
place Saddam Hussein will not be in is one of his palaces.
Senator Hollings. And you do not think----
Secretary Powell. I do not think he is as targetable as it
is often suggested. He is a survivor. He is aware of our
capability. I am sure he is doing everything he can to assure
his personal survival.
Senator Hollings. Being a survivor, there would be nothing
wrong, if we knew to hit him. In other words, when we hit that
automobile full of terrorists down in Yemen, we announced
publicly--I would not have announced it, but they did, and said
terrorists. In a terrorism war, terrorist open season, they are
combatants. And we can hit them anywhere we can find them.
So I take it there would be nothing wrong with trying to
hit Saddam with one of those missiles; would there be?
Secretary Powell. If we were in armed conflict, which we
may well find ourselves in, then----
Senator Hollings. As I understand it, excuse me, but we are
in armed conflict. The President announced, said, ``We are in a
terrorism war.'' And in a terrorism war, terrorists are
combatants. And therefore, you can kill them. That is how he
justified killing those people down there in Yemen.
So we have described Saddam in every way possible,
including as a terrorist. So you could go ahead and hit him,
could you not?
Secretary Powell. I, frankly, do not want to talk about
targeting, who might be targeted, or who might not be targeted
at an open hearing like this, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Well, you can see what I am getting at.
You do not want to level Baghdad to get him. I mean, how do we
get to victory, according to General Meyers----
Secretary Powell. We have no intention of--we are not going
to level Baghdad.
DEFINING VICTORY IN IRAQ
Senator Hollings. I agree; we are not going to level
Baghdad. So what is going to define victory, other than getting
him?
Secretary Powell. Defining victory will be a disarmed Iraq.
If it is done peacefully, with no invasion and no military
action required, it would be an Iraqi regime that has foresworn
these weapons of mass destruction and done so in a way that
there is reason to believe them. It is hard to imagine
believing them right now. If there is a military conflict, it
will require a change in that regime, because they have
demonstrated they will not change otherwise, and the disarming
of the country's weapons of mass destruction, putting in place
a better government for the people of Iraq.
This has been a terrible government for 30 years. It has
squandered the wealth of the nation on weapons of mass
destruction. It is all about the survival of one individual and
his cohorts in this one regime. The people of Iraq will be a
lot better off when their weapons of mass destruction are no
longer cause for the rest of the world to be concerned about.
If it takes the removal of the regime to do it, because we
cannot find a peaceful way, then that is what we are prepared
to do.
Senator Hollings. Senator Kohl, I recognize you. And I am
going to leave to vote, too. And the chairman is coming back,
and----
Senator Leahy. I believe that I was really here first.
Senator Hollings. You were here first? Excuse me then. Very
good. Excuse me, Senator Leahy. But the distinguished Secretary
has to leave no later than 11:30.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Senator Hollings. I understand we
were doing the early bird rule.
CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ
And I am sorry that I had to step out earlier, Mr.
Secretary. We have one of these judicial confirmation matters
that come up periodically on the floor of the Senate. And I was
involved in that. So I had to drop by.
I understand you are going to the United Nations. I am glad
you could take the time to come here. I appreciate that all the
years I have known you, both in the military and now in this,
you have always been responsive to consulting with the
Congress. I think it has helped your cause, but it has
certainly helped our understanding. And I do appreciate that.
I also appreciate the money that you have helped get in the
bill for food aid to starving people in Sub-Saharan Africa. For
that, some of us have been fighting for this for years.
Now having said that, let me ask you this: A question I get
in hundreds of letters, sometimes thousands of e-mails from my
little State of Vermont, is ``How has it come to this?'' They
are speaking of Iraq, of course.
When my wife and I go home on weekends, I go in the grocery
store. I get asked this question from everybody from the people
stocking the shelves to customers. I get to my house in
Vermont. People are calling, asking me the same question.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, we had hundreds
of thousands of Germans in Berlin marching in support of the
United States. We had Le Monde in France declaring ``We're all
Americans.'' We had unprecedented international cooperation in
our war against al-Qaeda, including the use of force in
Afghanistan. Now we have deep divisions within the Security
Council. Some of our closest allies raise serious questions
about our effort to launch a war immediately.
Saddam Hussein is one of the world's worst tyrants. He is a
war criminal. He is a despicable, dangerous despot. There is no
question that in a war crimes tribunal he could be convicted of
heinous crimes. The United States is a country that stands for
freedom, democracy, and human rights. We stand for making the
world a safer place.
But if that case is so clear, why are Russia, China,
Germany, France, and a dozen other nations saying we are making
a grave mistake by not giving the U.N. inspectors more time?
Turkey, which is swimming in debt, turns down our offer of
billions of dollars. We are threatening to go to war without a
Security Council resolution. We are causing deep divisions
among ourselves and within NATO. I have visited with NATO
leaders, and the United Nations. How did it come to this?
Secretary Powell. One of the reasons we are here is
because----
Senator Leahy. What do I say to Vermonters? What do I say
to Vermonters who ask me that question?
HISTORY REGARDING REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ
Secretary Powell. We are here because the international
community has refused to deal with this tyrant, who has all the
traits and attributes that you mentioned earlier. He is a
dictator. He has more than oppressed his own people; he has
allowed rape and murder and all kinds of terrible crimes to
occur within his country.
He is not the only one in the world like that. What makes
him different is he also has been developing weapons of mass
destruction; there is no question about it. He has had the
intent to do so, and he has developed them. He has used them in
a way that no other modern leader has used such weapons,
against his neighbors and against his people.
The international community made a judgment, beginning back
in 1991, that this was unacceptable and that he had to be
disarmed. He had to give up these weapons. For 11 years, the
international community kept passing resolutions and did
nothing about it.
This administration came into office determined to do
something about it, to see whether that behavior could be
changed. We came into office with a strong position from the
previous administration that this regime had to be changed, if
it would not change itself. We worked with the United Nations
to get them to realize the simple reality that this was a
dangerous regime and that something had to be done.
What really brought it into focus was 9/11, when it became
clear, as you heard from Senator Gregg earlier, that we have
people out there who would do anything to get their hands on
the kinds of weapons that Saddam Hussein is developing. Now
some argue back, ``Yes, but you cannot prove that kind of a
nexus between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Yes, you have some
evidence, but it is not good enough proof.''
Well, we do not want to wait around until the proof is
ready for a court of law, to say, ``But we have already seen
chemical or biological weapons made in Iraq show up somewhere
in New York or in Vermont.'' So we believe this was the time to
deal with this. We got the United Nations to agree with a 15-0
vote in the Security Council in early November. All members
agreed that Saddam Hussein was guilty. He was in material
breach, stayed in material breach. This is the time for the
Iraqi regime to change, immediately, unconditionally, right
now. Inspectors will help verify the disarmament. If Saddam
Hussein did not disarm this time, there would be serious
consequences. Everybody who voted for that knew what that
meant. It meant that if the Iraqi regime did not comply, there
would be a war.
There were some at that time who were already beginning to
say, ``Well, good. We have bought some time and then we will
buy some more time and some more time. Then this whole thing
will go away.''
STATUS OF ALLY SUPPORT
Senator Leahy. Is that what our allies are doing? Is that
what Germany is doing? Is that what France is doing? Is that
what China is doing? Is that what----
Secretary Powell. Yes. It is what some of our allies are
doing. But some of our allies, like the United Kingdom, Spain,
Italy, Portugal, the newly emerging nations of Eastern Europe,
and Australia, are standing up with us and standing up
strongly.
We have most of these European nations standing up
strongly, even in the face of public opinion that is in the
other direction. The new Turkish government, not fully
installed yet, went to their parliament and asked and lost just
by a couple of votes. As you heard yesterday, Mr. Erdogan and
Turkish general staff leaders said, ``We have to go back to our
parliament, because it is the right thing to do to support
America.''
Senator Leahy. I do not want to make any problem there,
but, as the administration tells us, they have not yet come to
the appropriators. We are going to have to come up with that
$10 billion to back up your bet.
Secretary Powell. Which $10 billion is that, sir?
AID TO TURKEY
Senator Leahy. Well, you are not offering $10 billion or $5
billion or some number of billions of dollars in aid extra aid
to Turkey?
Secretary Powell. The Turkish aid package was $6 billion in
grant aid, which could be leveraged up through loans to a
higher amount. But it was $6 billion. And----
Senator Leahy. No direct----
Secretary Powell [continuing]. We were quite aware----
Senator Leahy. No direct amounts?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
Senator Leahy. There will be no direct amounts?
Secretary Powell. No. I am not sure. It is a $6 billion
amount, some of which is direct, but some of it could be used
to leverage loans in order to have more impact on the economy.
Senator Leahy. I do not want to make your negotiations more
difficult, but I would suggest that the administration come up
here and talk to both Republicans and Democrats on the
Appropriations Committee and make sure that the votes are there
to support the package that is being promised, and that you are
not taking this money from other prior, equally critical needs
that both you and I support in the foreign aid bill; because so
far, we have not been told where that money is going to come
from or how it is going to be used.
There is North Korea, which we all agree poses a major
threat. I have heard statements made, I happen to agree with
them, that the last thing in the world we want them doing is
exporting their rockets or their missiles.
We spent a fortune to track the shipment of missiles from
North Korea to Yemen. We show our ability to stop the ship
carrying it on the open seas. And then we say, ``Oops. Sorry
about that. Go ahead and take the missiles anyway.''
And I am wondering if, when people see that, when they see
officials of the administration referring to our allies as
``old Europe,'' as though they have not faced war and as though
they do not have a lot of people who are still alive who have
lived through war on their soil. Those same officials suggest
the United Nations could be irrelevant, at the same time the
President's fiscal year budget says the United Nations serves
U.S. interests by helping end conflicts, restoring peace, and
strengthen regional stability.
I mean, which is it? If the United Nations does not go
along with everything we ask, do they become irrelevant? Are we
helped by calling countries in Europe ``old Europe'' in a
dismissive fashion?
RELEVANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Secretary Powell. Well, first of all, with respect to the
United Nations, if we thought it was irrelevant, the President
would not have gone there on the 12th of September. But at the
same time, the United Nations is in danger of becoming
irrelevant if it passes resolution after resolution that are
totally ignored by a country in a situation where that country
continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.
If the United Nations Security Council fails to deal with
this issue, certainly there is a degree of irrelevance then in
the Council's actions on this particular issue. The United
Nations is a body that we support. We have done a lot of work
in the last several years, in the previous administration and
this administration, to clear up our arrears, to rejoin UNESCO,
and take a number of other actions that show we understand the
purpose of international organizations. We want to be
multilateral with respect to our efforts.
Europe is not of a single mind on the issue of Iraq. I can
list more countries that are supportive of our position than
those that are against our position. The fact of the matter is
that European public opinion is not supportive of our position.
But I think the anxiety that exists within the international
community would be gone in a heartbeat if Saddam Hussein would
do what he is supposed to do; or, in the aftermath of a
successful military operation, people will see that we are
doing the correct thing in removing this dangerous threat from
the region and from the world.
With respect to Yemen and North Korea, we are deeply
concerned about North Korean proliferation and have been for a
long time. In the case of those particular Scuds, when we
determined that they were not heading to a terrorist
organization or a rogue state, but a nation that we have close
relations with, and the Scuds were part of a contract that had
previously been entered into, and we had assurances from the
Government of Yemen that the contract was now concluded with
this last shipment and we would not have to be worried about
any further sales from North Korea, it seemed the prudent thing
to do. I think it was the prudent thing to do, to let the
shipment continue to its owner, a friend of ours, with
assurances that that was the end of it and that they were
discharging any further contractual arrangements they might
have had or entered into with North Korea.
Senator Leahy. Other Senators are back now. And I will go
and vote. But two things: One, I hope their new assurances are
more accurate than their old assurances.
Secretary Powell. We did not have old assurances that they
would not purchase. We have new ones.
Senator Leahy. And secondly, if we are going to continue to
be offering money and aid to other countries, come on up here
and make sure that the Congress will actually back up that
money.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl.
STATUS OF OTHER ARAB NATIONS
Senator Kohl. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, President Bush has said that ``a new regime
in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of
freedom for other nations in the region.'' My question to you
is: How are other Arab states reacting to our aspirations for
Iraq to be a model democracy, given that our Arab partners in
the region are currently not ruled by democratic regimes? What
sort of message are we sending to the current governments,
particularly at a time when we are relying on some of them for
support in our war effort? Are we not implicitly saying, ``You
are next, and, if necessary, by force''?
Secretary Powell. No. Our friends and I stay in very close
touch with them and spoke to several of them this morning, they
know that we have no intention of forcing the overthrow of
their regime or leadership, either overtly or covertly. But
they also know, because the President has said this on a number
of occasions, and I have said it on a number of occasions, that
we think that democracy is not something that is just
exclusively for Western nations. Democracy should be able to
thrive in Arab nations, as well.
I think what we will be seeing in the years ahead is that,
as each Arab nation moves further into the 21st Century, they
will see the benefits of opening their society up to great
opportunity for women, educating their children for the kinds
of jobs that will be needed to be performed in those societies
in the 21st Century, removing state controls on the economy,
diversifying their economy, and having more representative
forms of government.
We do not shy away from making this case to our friends in
the region. Now, they press back. They have their own culture,
their own history, and their own traditions. They have been
nations far longer than the United States of America. So we
enter into a spirit of dialogue with them. We think each of
them will have to find their own way into the future, of
course. We hope that we can be of assistance to them. We are.
The Middle East Partnership Initiative that I launched not
too long ago will try to help them with their education of
young people for the 21st Century by helping to build up a
civil society. We have fascinating debates and discussions with
our Arab friends. We believe that we should say to them what we
believe with respect to the power of a democracy to help
transform and better their societies.
POST-SADDAM IRAQ
Senator Kohl. Would it not follow that we then go in and
disarm Iraq so that they are no longer a threat to us and let
them set up their own society and do it in a way that most fits
their own needs and aspirations, much as it is true in Saudi
Arabia and so on?
Secretary Powell. I think we would have an opportunity
here, however, to shape this in a way that we can convince them
that the best way to set up their new society is on the basis
of openness, on the basis of representative government, and on
the basis of pulling the diverse elements of the Iraqi
population into a form of government that respects each of
those diverse elements and yet keeps it together as a nation.
So I think we have an important role to play.
We will not ignore their history, traditions, and culture.
We could not, even if we wanted to. It's 24 million people. But
at the same time, we have some experience over the last 50 to
60 years of going into countries that have not experienced that
kind of representative government before and getting them to
see the benefit of it and leaving them far better off than when
we went in.
Senator Kohl. So this might be something akin, not exactly
like, but akin to what we did in Japan after the war?
Secretary Powell. I do not think it is going to be akin to
any of the models of the past. I do not think it is like Japan
or--we are not going to have a MacArthur there for 7 years or 8
years or a four power arrangement, as we had in Germany. I
think each one of these is unique.
Afghanistan was unique, where we were able to put in place
an Afghan government rather quickly. There were people standing
there, leaders ready to lead and lead in the right direction.
We were able to support them.
There are other models--East Timor, Cambodia, Bosnia, and
Kosovo. We are studying all of these models to see what would
fit best in Iraq. But our overall principle is: If a military
operation is required, obviously then a military commander has
to be in charge and would be in charge in the immediate
aftermath of the conflict for some period of time. We want that
period of time to be as short as possible.
As we transition to a civilian administration, we will
bring in international organizations to help with the
rebuilding and to help with the funding of the whole exercise,
bring in responsible Iraqi leaders to create their own
government, work with both people who have been outside and
inside of Iraq, and work with the traditional leaders within
Iraq to put in place a government that does not commit itself
to weapons of mass destruction and threaten its neighbors, as
the current government has for the last 30 years.
SAUDI ARABIA AND 9/11 TERRORISTS
Senator Kohl. Last question: Fifteen out of the nineteen
terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian in their origins. If we
are going after countries and obviously not willing to abide
terrorists or those who sponsor them, where does Saudi Arabia
fit it?
Secretary Powell. Saudi Arabia has been a friend of the
United States for many years and still remains one. We are
troubled that so many came from Saudi Arabia, and they are
troubled that so many came from their country. We are working
with them to put in place a better visa system so we know
exactly who is coming into the United States. We are also
working with them on searching out sources of financing for
terrorist organizations. They have been very cooperative in
that regard. They realize they have a problem within Saudi
Arabia if they are serving as a place of gestation for these
kinds of individuals.
It is not only a threat to the United States. I think we
are persuading them that it is a threat to Saudi Arabia as
well.
MADRASAS
Senator Kohl. But do they not have schools that educate the
young that----
Secretary Powell. They have schools that I do not think
have been organized and are being run in a way that is
consistent with what their educational needs are for the 21st
Century. Too often, these schools have been educating
youngsters in a way that would lead some of these youngsters
into this kind of activity. That is also a subject of
discussion with the Saudis.
They have also been funding those kinds of schools in other
parts of the world. We are now seeing some of the consequences
of that and taking it up with the Saudis. In fact, as part of
our effort with Pakistan, Pakistan is trying to redo its
educational system, so that the schools exist not as a hotbed
of extremism, but as a place where youngsters get an education
so that they can contribute to Pakistan and not become a
problem for Pakistan or for the world.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
ISLAMIC CENTER IN TURKEY
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to follow up on
Senator Kohl's comments a little bit. First, I would note that
this committee, under the leadership of Senator Hollings, set
up the Center for Muslim Western Dialogue in Turkey, the basic
purpose of which is to try to educate folks in the Muslim world
about advantages of democracy. And we are continuing to fund
that aggressively.
And if the Department has other ideas in this area, we
would be interested in them. These are the types of initiatives
we would like to pursue. I think Senator Hollings has set out a
good course here for us to follow in this committee. We would
like to increase the effort in that area. So I guess we are
asking for ideas.
ROLE FOR FRANCE AND GERMANY
Secondly, is the issue of post-Saddam Iraq. France has had
a very significant commercial relationship with Iraq, which
they have continued during the period of Saddam Hussein's
leadership and have taken advantage of that criminal regime
through commercial activity. I am just wondering: What is the
proper role for France, and even Germany, in a post-Saddam
Iraq?
Secretary Powell. Well, I think it remains to be seen. I
think that once a new government is in place, it will be up to
that government to determine how they will use their economic
resources, their oil, their principal source of revenue, and
who they will enter into various economic arrangements with. It
is not for the United States to dictate the future of Iraq. It
is for us, if we have to have a military operation, to hold in
trust for the people of Iraq their wealth in the form of their
oil. It will all be used for the benefit of the people of Iraq.
But it would seem to me that the people of Iraq, now having
been liberated, might glance around and see who helped and
participated in that liberation, and who did not.
FRENCH ROLE IN THE CONGO
Senator Gregg. On a tangential issue, we have spent
approximately $800 million of American taxpayer money in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo relative to the U.N.
peacekeeping mission there, which is primarily being pursued
under the auspices of France as the lead country and as the
designer of the policy to some degree. And one has to wonder:
With the lack of cooperation France is giving us on what we
consider to be a major national strategic issue, our national
defense and our right to protect ourselves from weapons of mass
destruction, to what extent is it appropriate for taxpayers to
continue to support the French position in the Congo?
Secretary Powell. I think we have to be very careful if we
are having a particular problem with one of our friends in one
area, not to see if we can ``get even'' in another area, where
it does not serve our interest to get even. In the case of the
Congo, I think the money that we are using and the efforts of
the French have started to have a result and pay off.
For example, Germany, even though we have a major dispute
with them over the issue of Iraq, Germany has troops in
Afghanistan standing alongside of ours. They have troops in the
Balkans. We are cooperating with the Germans in a number of
areas. They are working with us in the global war on terrorism.
So we can have strong and serious disagreements. I can
assure you that these disagreements are fought out with emotion
and heat in the various conference rooms that I spend a lot of
my time in, but that does not mean that they are suddenly no
longer our friends or that the place is a hotbed of anti-
Americanism. We are having a dispute over policy. That dispute
over policy should not necessarily result in the end of
friendships that have served us well for long, long periods of
time.
Now there may be areas where we have to question whether or
not we ought to be cooperating with them, because if they took
this attitude here and that same attitude translates somewhere
else, then they could affect our equity there. So I do not say
that we should not look at all we are doing. But, I think any
suggestion of ``Let us get even with them somewhere else'' in a
way that hurts us is not necessarily the right policy.
RENOVATION OF U.N. BUILDING IN NEW YORK
Senator Gregg. On one item which is coming at us, which is
a big issue financially, is the request by the United Nations
to build a new building in New York. I mentioned this to you
earlier, $1.6 billion for a new building. Now, the
reconstruction of the World Trade Center, which envisions the
largest building in the world on that site, along with a
variety of other memorials, is estimated to be less than $400
million. The building of the Beijing Embassy, which is going to
be the most expensive undertaking we have ever pursued as a
foreign construction project, is projected to cost less than
$500 million.
The United Nations is asking for something that exceeds the
cost of the World Trade Center reconstruction by over $1
billion. This, on the face of it, seems to be excessive. Now
maybe it is not. But we would like to get some ideas about
this, since the taxpayers of America are likely to bear the
biggest burden of this cost.
Secretary Powell. Yes. The number I have been hearing is $1
billion. But it is nevertheless a significant number. There are
other buildings besides just the U.N. building itself that are
involved. There are various partnerships that have been entered
into with the City of New York. This is a very complex project,
made more complex by the fact that the intent is to rebuild and
renovate, not just start from a piece of ground. I think that
very prospect adds a lot to the cost of this project.
It is a historic place. It is a landmark in New York. The
rebuilding of that landmark is expensive, but I cannot sit here
and justify the cost. I am not saying the costs are wrong. It
is just that I am not in a position to tell you I know enough
about the costing of that project to defend it.
Senator Gregg. Well, before we get assessed with an
arrearage from the United Nations for not participating fully
in that, I think we are going to have to have some real----
Secretary Powell. I think the request is for----
Senator Gregg. Maybe we should ask General Williams to be
in charge of that.
Secretary Powell. Well, General Williams and I have spoken
about it. He is looking at the project, just as a matter of
interest for me, because sooner or later we will be asked to
come up with an interest-free loan to help pay for the
building.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
COMPENSATION FOR IRANIAN HOSTAGES
Senator Hollings. I appreciate your answer, Mr. Secretary,
about the French, because I fought with them in World War II.
They are outstanding fighters. We have the French and the
Germans and the Turks with us in Afghanistan. And I hope this
afternoon you can convince them to rejoin us.
I have always been concerned about Iranian hostages. On May
22, 2002 you said a plan for compensation would soon be
submitted. Can we count on getting that plan from you?
Secretary Powell. I will have to research with my staff,
sir, and give you an answer for the record.
Senator Hollings. Yes. Because we have your letter, and you
stated that on May 22, 2002 that a comprehensive plan for
compensation would be forthcoming.
Secretary Powell. Yes. I will try to find out. Obviously,
it has not been forthcoming. So I will try to find out the
status of it and get an answer for you.
Senator Hollings. Very good.
Secretary Powell. I may have it now. I do not know.
Senator Gregg. Maybe it just arrived.
Senator Hollings. It just arrived.
Secretary Powell. Yes. It is out of my office.
I know where it is. I will go ask the Director of this
Office of Management and Budget why it is still there.
Senator Hollings. Yes. Well, you have quite a task. And we
appreciate it very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl, do you have any additional
questions?
SITUATION IN NORTH KOREA
Senator Kohl. Just one.
Mr. Secretary, I and others have been very concerned about
reports that the United States is prepared to live with a
nuclear North Korea and that we intend to shift our focus on
preventing the North Koreans from exporting nuclear weapons to
other countries. I agree that we need to do all we can to
prevent North Korea from exporting weapons of mass destruction;
but I believe that we should not back down from our efforts to
forestall North Korea from developing nuclear weapons in the
first place.
So in that area, why have we decided, or have we decided,
not to talk to them directly? Is this not the best way to get
to the bottom of it while at the same time encouraging other
countries to be a part of the effort?
Secretary Powell. Well, first of all, I read that report. I
do not know of any basis for the report, that we have decided
to live with a nuclearized North Korea.
The position of the United States is: We do not want to see
nuclear weapons in the Korean Peninsula. It is also the
position of China. It is also the position of Japan and South
Korea. In fact, South Korea entered into an agreement with
North Korea a little over 10 years ago that guaranteed a non-
nuclear Korean Peninsula, yet another agreement that North
Korea has violated.
We are working with all of our friends in the region to see
that North Korea does not become nuclearized or even more
nuclearized than it may be, because our intelligence suggests
they may have one or two nuclear weapons. Some say they do have
one or two nuclear weapons. We will not know until we actually
find a way to confirm that.
So we are working hard to see that they do not move any
further. Our concern right now would be if they started up the
reprocessing facility. They have been acting in provocative
ways. They have been trying to get our attention. We are not
unmindful of these efforts on their part to get our attention.
But we are making it clear to the North Koreans that we do
want to talk, but we want to talk in a multilateral forum. Why
do we want to do that? Because it is not just a problem between
the United States and the DPRK. That is the way they want to
see it. It is a problem with the DPRK and the international
community and with the DPRK and the International Atomic Energy
Agency, which has condemned them for breaking the seals and
moving in the direction to restart the reactor. It is a problem
between the DPRK and South Korea for violating their agreement
with South Korea. It is a problem between the DPRK and Japan,
China, Russia, and many other nations.
Therefore, we are looking for a multilateral way to deal
with this problem. Now, every time I pick up the paper in the
morning, it says a quick solution is, ``Why do you not just
call them up and go talk to them?'' Well, that is what happened
some years ago when we came up with the Agreed Framework. The
Agreed Framework served a useful purpose in capping the
Yongbyon facility so that it was not producing any more
fissionable material. I give credit to the Agreed Framework for
having done that for eight years.
But at the same time, the potential for developing
fissionable material was left in place at Yongbyon by the
Agreed Framework. As the ink was drying on the Agreed Framework
and a number of other assurances that the North Koreans gave
us, they had started work on another form of enrichment,
enriched uranium, to produce the material needed for nuclear
weapons.
While we thought we had them, you know, in one jug with a
cork in the jug, even though the jug was left there to be
uncorked, they were working on another jug. We found out about
it last year. We did the right thing; we called them to
account.
We said, ``We know you are doing this. This is in violation
of all the commitments you have made over the years to the
South Koreans and to the international community. It is in
violation of the Agreed Framework, the basic intent of the
Agreed Framework.''
Their response was, ``Yes, we did it. Now come talk to us,
and we will see what kind of framework we can come up with this
time.''
Well, what we are saying is: This time it has to be solved
for good. It will only be solved for good if it involves all of
the nations who are in the region. North Korea has tried to,
through its provocative steps over the last several months, get
the attention of the world on this issue and get the attention
directed toward us. The attention should be directed toward the
North Koreans. They are the ones who have people who are
starving. Not one person will be saved by enriched uranium or
by more plutonium coming out. They have blown the opportunity
they had to get enormous assistance from Japan by their
actions.
We have a number of diplomatic initiatives underway, some
of them very, very quietly underway, to see if we cannot get a
multilateral dialogue started. We are looking for a peaceful
solution to this problem. We are committed to a non-nuclear
Korean Peninsula.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate you
taking the time.
Well, we have been joined by the chairman of the full
committee. So obviously we defer to the chairman of the full
committee for any questions he may have.
SENATOR STEVENS' REMARKS
Senator Stevens. No questions for my good friend. I am
happy to have a chance to be here and to tell the world what a
great job I think you are doing, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens. I look forward to working with you in any
way possible.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, sir. I was up at Elmendorf the
other day. It looked great up there.
Senator Stevens. Well, the next time we will arrange a site
trip around the State, maybe do a little marine research.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. I know the kind you have in
mind. I look forward to it.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, we will let you get up to the
United Nations. And thank you again for what you are doing for
the country.
Secretary Powell. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr.
Chairman.
[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
DIPLOMATIC READINESS INITIATIVE
Question. Could you walk us through the methodology State used to
arrive at the numbers for the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative? What
internal review process took place to determine where additional
personnel were needed? Why, during this internal review process, wasn't
the Department also able to identify posts that were overstaffed for
right-sizing? If such a review took place, why has the Department been
unable to tell the Committee where exactly the new FSOs will be placed?
Answer. The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) addresses many of
our core needs, some of which are determined by our Overseas Staffing
Model (OSM) and training requirements. The Overseas Staffing Model is
the primary tool for determining baseline overseas staffing needs. It
provides an objective, flexible tool to measure what resources are
needed to meet the President's and the Secretary's foreign policy
priorities and objectives. The OSM quantifies what we need to achieve
the International Affairs Strategic Goals, to meet legislative
mandates, and to fulfill our responsibilities to support the full USG
presence overseas. This model, made up of seven components (``core
program,'' consular, public diplomacy, etc.), identifies the staffing
requirements at overseas posts based on specific categories and
criteria and provides a comparative assessment of posts. It evaluates
each post using workload indicators and host country factors. The OSM
serves as a baseline and specific staffing decisions are made through
the budget and planning process. The OSM showed in 2001 that we had
needs expressed as 386 positions overseas that were not being met. The
DRI request for 1,158 positions covered this shortfall.
In addition, we determined we needed to be able to meet other needs
without straining our workforce. In order to have people in training
and to avoid staffing gaps when transfers and crises occur we need
enough people in the system. The remaining DRI positions are to cover
establishment of long-term training positions (such as for languages)
or detailee positions--to which employees are assigned--as well as to
increase our base level of employees. While we need more people to meet
crisis response and emerging priority needs, we do not have people in
positions designated as ``waiting'' for that crisis to occur; rather,
we planned to use new DRI positions to meet those policy, program, or
infrastructure support needs identified by the Department during our
budget and financial plan cycle. The increases to overall staffing
would reduce the strain when employees were sent to short term training
(such as under our new mandatory leadership and management training
initiative) or when they needed to be reassigned to higher priorities.
The DRI therefore is about flexibility and preparedness rather than
specific position-by-position detailed needs. This is also partly due
to the nature of the Foreign Service system of ``people in motion''
rotating between positions as well as the inherent unpredictability of
foreign affairs.
The Department's senior leadership makes final decisions on the
Department's staffing requirements, hiring plans, and position
allocation based on emerging priorities, funding potential, Overseas
Staffing Model projections as well as the Senior reviews led by the
Deputy Secretary. This ensures that staffing decisions are made in
support of mission requirements. The strong linkage between strategic
priorities and resource decisions--with senior management involvement--
ensures the Department's ability to meet our mission. The exact
allocation of the new positions created in fiscal year 2004 will depend
on the results of those decisions.
While the OSM identified that overseas staffing was below what is
required, this does not mean that we have not identified places where
staff can be reallocated. ``Rightsizing'' is an ongoing process. The
Department continually reviews changing priorities and emerging issues
and reallocates positions among regions or between functions so that
higher priority needs are met. During the 1990's, as the Department
downsized its employment, the necessity to reallocate scarce resources
in line with priorities became paramount. Oftentimes, people were
pulled to address new issues while old ones still existed. In our
strategic planning and budgeting process we require missions to assess
how they could meet their new needs within existing resources.
Now, thanks to increased hiring, posts and regional bureaus have
been able to move resources to meet the priority counterterrorism
mission while still continuing to staff other critical requirements. As
we have added positions overseas in the last few years, we have
increased infrastructure across the board so that posts are not as thin
as they had been, but more positions have gone to posts in the Middle
East and South Asia.
PERSONNEL PLACEMENT DECISIONS
Question. Have the events of September 11, 2001 impacted personnel
placement decisions? In other words, has the list of posts slated to
receive personnel increases changed in light of September 11?
Answer. Post September 11 the Department immediately reprioritized
and moved people and resources to meet the emerging counter terrorism
mission. New positions were established based on the new needs being
identified, particularly in the consular area. These needs are likely
to become permanent needs that will have to be regularized and will
need to be treated as a baseline requirement.
We have had to use some of the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative
(DRI) positions to cover new consular needs in the wake of 9/11 when
the workload went up even as MRV fee revenues--which have funded many
consular position increases--went down. We have also had increased visa
processing requirements that have increased workload while we have also
worked to ensure that we have fully trained commissioned Foreign
Service Officers in all positions. In the short run we have had to meet
these new requirements within our current workforce. These requirements
will need to be met continuously, but the original DRI did not envision
these changes.
Baghdad is being staffed now by TDY employees from other embassies
and the Department. The staffing gaps left behind may be acceptable in
the short run, but for the longer term they must be filled. In
addition, we must account for the Washington backup of these new
programs, such as the new office supporting the reconstruction of
Afghanistan.
Even though we had to use some DRI positions for these unexpected
contingencies, we still need the personnel complement foreseen by DRI
to make training and future crisis response possible.
CONSULAR OFFICERS
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget request includes an increase
of $28 million to hire an additional 68 Consular Officers. Why was this
not included as part of the Diplomatic Hiring Initiative request?
Answer. The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) request was
introduced as a three-year plan by Secretary of State Powell in 2001 to
fill gaps created by underhiring in relation to workload in the 1990's.
The DRI addresses many of our core needs, some of which are determined
by our Overseas Staffing Model and training requirements. However, some
personnel requirements are assessed and resources requested separately
such as security, IT, and consular, which tend to have specific needs
due to outside events. The DRI request did not take into account the
additional requirements that would follow from the events of September
11th. Currently, the Department is assessing future personnel needs
taking into account the long-term needs of the Department, to include
the implications following the events of September 11th.
The 68 CA positions that are referenced in the question represent
new positions not originally contemplated in the DRI. These positions
will be used to replace temporary consular associates with full-time
consular officers. This is a critical element in the Department's'
efforts to support homeland security initiatives.
Additionally, Consular positions have traditionally been funded
through the MRV fees collected by the Department. Post September 11,
travel has decreased and therefore so has MRV income. This means that
we need to request appropriated funds for these additional personnel
requirements.
RIGHT-SIZING
Question. What progress has the Department made towards right-
sizing? Can you tell me where, for example, the Department has actually
decreased the number of U.S. personnel stationed at a post? Could you
have your staff transmit a list of the Department's right-sizing
``success stories?''
How do you reconcile the DRI with the concept of rightsizing? How
does the Department justify bringing on 1,158 new FSOs when it has yet
to maximize its existing human capital by carrying out its commitment
to right-size overseas posts?
Answer. The Department of State and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) agree with the General Accounting Office's definition of
rightsizing:
``Rightsizing [is] aligning the number and location of staff
assigned overseas with foreign policy priorities and security and other
constraints. Rightsizing may result in the addition or reduction of
staff, or a change in the mix of staff at a given embassy or
consulate.''
The Department uses a variety of tools to rightsize its overseas
presence, as described below. Our rightsizing is one component of the
broader President's Management Agenda (PMA) rightsizing initiative, led
by OMB, which looks at all agencies with overseas staffing. We are
working closely with OMB to ensure the success of the overall PMA
initiative.
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative.--The DRI is an integral part of
State's rightsizing, i.e., it addresses fundamental staffing needs to
reverse the trend of the early 1990s when we hired under attrition. We
need these positions to fill unmet needs overseas and to provide for
enough personnel to respond to crises and go to training without
leaving staffing gaps.
Overseas Staffing Model.--The OSM is our workforce planning tool
that assists management in allocation of resources, including those
needed to support the USG diplomatic platform. The OSM provides an
objective, flexible tool to measure what resources are needed to meet
the President's and the Secretary's foreign policy priorities and
objectives.
Strategic Planning and Human Resource Allocation Processes.--The
Mission Performance Planning (MPP) process integrates strategic human
capital planning elements into the planning process with the
categorization of staffing and funding resources by strategic goals, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). This
enables each mission's senior management to assess the commitment of
human resources across the strategic goals, and also assists State
regional bureaus to better distribute State Operations and Foreign
Operations funding across the strategic goals.
Regionalization.--The Department of State has long made extensive
use of regional offices to help us meet the needs of difficult or
dangerous posts. Regional centers exist in the United States (e.g.,
Charleston, South Carolina; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Portsmouth, New
Hampshire), at major overseas hubs (e.g., Frankfurt, Bangkok), and at
smaller sub-hubs on an ad hoc basis (e.g., Dakar, Hong Kong). Regional
support provided from these centers allows the Department to accomplish
a variety of complementary goals, including improving the overall
efficiency of our global operations, supporting specific posts which
could not otherwise operate effectively, and reducing the burden of
workload, and thus staffing, at many of our most dangerous or difficult
overseas posts. The Department is constantly reassessing the specific
needs of particular posts and adjusting regional support accordingly.
In addition, the Department has underway a number of initiatives
designed to apply the benefits of continuing technological improvements
to rightsizing. One prominent example: By the end of this fiscal year,
the Department will complete the transfer of significant financial
management support operations from Paris, France to Charleston, South
Carolina, as a result reducing 109 positions in Paris.
This action was made possible by improvements in our financial
management systems software. We now have one overseas accounting system
that replaces the two former legacy systems that complies with Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requirements and facilitates
the compilation and reporting of data for the Department's financial
statements. With further enhancements, posts in Europe, Africa, the
Near East and South Asia will be able to communicate and conduct
certain financial operations electronically, with ``real time'' access
to financial systems. These management actions reduced the need to
maintain overseas staff at the Financial Service Center in Paris to
support these posts and reinforced the decision to consolidate many
financial operations in Charleston.
Post Openings and Closings.--Rightsizing affects not merely the
size of U.S. posts but also their distribution. Perhaps the best
illustration of the Department's ongoing rightsizing efforts is the
near-constant activity to open, close and relocate overseas diplomatic
posts. Since 1990, we have opened 52 new posts (29 embassies, 23
consulates, consulates general, branch offices, etc.) and closed 43 (11
embassies, 32 consulates, etc.).
EMBASSY CONSTRUCTION
Question. Mr. Secretary, what impact has 9/11 had on the way the
Office of Overseas Buildings Operations approaches designing and
building embassies abroad? Do you think the lessons of 9/11 were that
we need to build more heavily fortified embassies? Or, do you believe
that 9/11 demonstrated that we simply cannot build buildings that are
100 percent secure and must therefore look to mitigate the threat in
other ways (such as better deterrence and prevention)?
Answer. The watershed event that reshaped the mission of the Bureau
of Overseas Buildings Operations was the August 1998 bombings of our
embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. The events of
9/11 served to reinforce the continuing threat and therefore the urgent
need to accelerate the construction of new facilities that can satisfy
the Department's stringent security requirements and protect our
diplomatic personnel by providing secure, safe, and functional office
and residential environments. We appreciate the support the Congress
and this Committee have given to our efforts.
SOFT TARGETS
Question. Mr. Secretary, does the possibility of further and
perhaps more ambitious attacks against post housing, churches
frequented by Americans, and American Schools concern you as much as it
does me?
I would not suggest that we should shift resources away from the
security of our official buildings in favor of enhancing security at
non-official locations. However, we must do more to assure the safety
of overseas personnel outside the embassy walls. Above all, we must
assure the safety of our children in their schools overseas.
What do you believe is the State Department's proper role in this
area? What level of responsibility should State bear for the security
of non-official locales? Based on the risk and threat assessments that
have, presumably, been conducted on these non-official locales, do you
believe they/we are prepared? When can we expect the $15 million
provided in the fiscal year 2003 Conference Report to start being
distributed? Do you believe additional funds are necessary to protect
U.S. personnel and their families in ``soft target'' environments?
Answer. The possibility of attacks against soft targets overseas
most certainly concerns me. However, there exist many more soft targets
overseas where Americans gather than the U.S. government could ever
possibly protect. I believe we must pursue a dual strategy. First,
identify those soft targets that are readily identified with, and in
some way connected to, U.S. Diplomatic facilities abroad. Housing for
our employees overseas and schools supported by our missions certainly
fit in this category, and it is appropriate that Congress has provided
funding to mitigate security vulnerabilities in those areas. We should
recognize, though, that in the latter case, a great many other children
attend as well, American and non-American. Normal security costs should
be borne by all that attend and be reflected in tuition costs. Our role
for the schools should be to provide security advice and counsel, and
to provide grants for high priority security upgrades such as window
films, emergency public address systems, and communications with
Embassies and local police and security.
To ensure that the $15 million provided in the fiscal year 2003
Conference Report, as well as the additional $10 million in the
Supplemental, is distributed wisely, the Department has a working group
with officers from the bureaus of Overseas Buildings Operations,
Diplomatic Security, and the Office of Overseas Schools. We expect that
funding may be provided to some schools prior to the end of the fiscal
year, and continue over a 3-year period.
For the many, many other possible soft targets, I believe our
continuing responsibility, and a role that we fulfill very well, is to
provide timely and accurate advice that fits the local situation. We
fulfill this responsibility every day with Consular information
bulletins, Overseas Security Advisory Counsel (OSAC) local country
counsels, Regional Security Officer briefings, and other outreach
programs.
Question. How has the Consular Affairs mission changed in the
aftermath of 9/11? Would you agree that the mission your consular
officers perform is vital to our national security? What are the pros
and cons of the Department's tradition of requiring new Foreign Service
Officers to serve their first tour in Consular Affairs? Do you think
this policy has contributed to creating a culture at State where CA
officers are second class citizens? Do you agree that Consular Affairs
is a sufficiently important component of the Department's mission that
it should be staffed by career FSOs, rather than by novices?
In my visits to U.S. embassies abroad, I have noted that it is
often the Consular Affairs sections where conditions are the worst
(most crowded, etc.). In my view, there is a direct link between the
quality of CA workspace and the productivity and efficiency of our
consular officers. Would you agree with this? What are you doing to
change this situation?
Answer. The work of Consular Affairs is a vital element of our
country's overall plan to protect our national security. As part of our
border security program, we have made significant changes in the wake
of 9/11. We have expanded our automated lookout system to include more
information shared with us by other government agencies and increased
the number and type of special clearances required for applicants of
particular concern. Our automated system now requires that we collect
additional information on all visa applicants. And we are limiting the
circumstances in which a personal appearance can be waived for visa
applicants. All of these changes require additional personnel, and we
have created additional positions to help meet this workload.
The Department's traditional policy of requiring all junior
officers to serve a tour in a consular assignment abroad has benefits
for both the officer and the Department. The officer has an early
opportunity to develop management skills, demonstrate leadership, and
hone interpersonal and foreign language skills. For the Department, the
Junior Officer's consular tour can be a chance to see how the officer
performs in a difficult situation, dealing with both American and
Foreign Service National (FSN) colleagues as well as with often
demanding host country nationals. The officer's performance in the
consular tour is a vital factor in determining whether the officer
should be tenured in the Foreign Service.
Junior Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) have gone through a rigorous
examination process to arrive at this point. In addition to the
consular training at the Foreign Service Institute, which has recently
been expanded, they bring a wealth of academic and real world
experience to their jobs. They are dedicated and motivated
professionals who take their role in protecting homeland security
seriously. Our junior officers are closely supervised by more senior
career consular officers. At posts staffed by only a single consular
officer, the Deputy Chief of Mission takes on the supervisory role and
an experienced regional consular officer visits the posts regularly to
provide management oversight and advice for the consular function.
The consular cone is one of five career tracks for Foreign Service
generalists. All Foreign Service generalists have the opportunity to
serve in positions out of cone to broaden their experience and to
compete for positions such as Deputy Chief of Mission.
It has often been difficult for the physical facilities in our
consular sections abroad to keep pace with the increasing numbers of
personnel, both Foreign Service Officers and Foreign Service Nationals,
required by the visa process, which has become even more complex in the
post 9/11 world. The employees engaged in this vital work deserve
working conditions that are secure, safe, and adequate for the job.
Our Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) has embarked upon
an ambitious building program to complete new embassies on time and
within budget. The Bureau of Consular Affairs works closely with the
designers and planners at OBO to ensure that consular sections in new
embassy buildings are adequate to permit an efficient and effective
consular operation. CA and OBO continue to work together to refine the
standards for consular sections now being designed. OBO and CA also
work collaboratively in the rehab of facilities to permit consular
sections to be rehabbed along with other parts of the buildings. In
order to react more quickly to fluctuations in consular workload, OBO
is also looking at acquiring commercial space for consular sections. In
the fiscal year 2003 appropriation, Congress directed OBO to undertake
a 3-year Consular Workspace Improvement Initiative, earmarking up to $8
million of OBO funds for this purpose. CA has worked closely with OBO
to prioritize these projects.
Question. Mr. Secretary, protecting information at our posts
overseas is costly. If we had the technological capability to store
information in the United States, rather than at post, wouldn't this be
worth looking into? Would you agree such a technology could reduce the
number of overseas personnel required to assure the security of
information, and thus result in cost-savings?
Answer. For the past two years, the Department of State has been
exploring the technological capability to store information in the
United States rather than at our overseas posts.
We are also studying the implementation of the High Assurance
Virtual Wide Area Network (HA VWAN) which will provide classified
connectivity to critical threat posts and to posts that have
environments with weak physical, administrative or technical security
controls. This program would reduce classified holdings. A pilot on
this technology will commence in Summer 2003.
But at the core of my Information Technology priorities is to
replace the current 60-year-old ``cable'' technology used by the
Department and other Foreign Affairs Agencies with a new system. This
new technology called SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Tool
Set) will provide centralized storage in the United States of all
document types (currently cables, memorandum, informal messages and
notices).
It will give our diplomats access to more information and minimize
the holdings at a post because posts will access data from a server in
the United States. We expect to deploy SMART in fiscal year 2005.
While SMART will provide some reduction in classified holdings, we
will need to continue to ensure the protection of the information and
equipment that remains at post.
However, we cannot guarantee, at this time, that there will be a
reduction in the number of overseas personnel required to maintain,
operate and ensure the integrity of our information stored overseas.
Existing Marine Security Guard requirements would not be affected.
Our Information Specialists safeguard and are responsible for the
classified network infrastructure including encryption, COMSEC, and
other classified network components that must be maintained and
protected.
The mandated duties of our Information Systems Security Officers
(ISSOs) will not decrease significantly. While compliance and reporting
requirements have increased in recent years, posts are not yet staffed
properly to meet those new requirements. A restructuring of the duties
of Information Specialists at overseas posts would enable the
Department to better meet these reporting responsibilities.
Question. I understand that the estimated cost of renovating the
U.N. headquarters complex in New York City is $1.6 billion. Mr.
Secretary, the design for the World Trade Center site (encompassing a
museum, and opera house, a mall, and five office buildings, one of
which will be the tallest building in the world) is expected to cost
only $350 million. How is it possible, then, that the cost of
renovating the U.N. headquarters is $1.6 billion?
A reasonable person would expect that security of the new World
Trade Center site would be as robust as any building complex in New
York City. The cost of the new U.S. embassy compound in Beijing, China
is expected to be $438 million. Surely the cost of security at the U.N.
complex in New York City will not exceed our security costs in China by
$1.2 billion. Can you explain this?
Answer. As the design phase of the U.N. Capital Master Plan
progresses, the Department remains in regular contact with U.N.
secretariat officials to monitor closely the cost estimates and
assumptions of the project to ensure that they are realistic and
reasonable. Also, the General Accounting Office has just completed an
updated study on the project--including the issue of cost estimates--
and we urge you to examine the conclusions of that report when it is
released shortly.
The cost components of the U.N. Capital Master Plan, as currently
estimated, are as follows:
--Baseline cost: $1.05 billion, including rental of swing space; and
--``Scope options,'' related to additional security, energy
efficiency, and system contingencies: $150 million, assuming
all were to be included in the final design.
--In addition, as part of the overall plan, the U.N. Development
Corporation--a public benefit corporation of the State and City
of New York--has proposed to construct a new office building
just south of the existing U.N. compound which would be used as
swing space during the renovation of the existing U.N.
facilities (permitting all staff to relocate and allowing the
renovation work to proceed all at once, thus reducing costs)
and ultimately to consolidate U.N. staff currently housed in
several rental buildings off the U.N. compound, with no added
costs to the United Nations.
Security is a vital component of both the Beijing Embassy compound
as well as the U.N. headquarters facilities. However, security elements
do not represent the majority of the cost factors for either project.
It is very difficult to compare these two projects, as they serve
considerably different purposes. For the Beijing compound, our Office
of Overseas Building Operations is working with a budget of $434
million and is designing facilities to accommodate 846 staff as well as
consular operations. The U.N. headquarters complex will continue to
accommodate the needs of 191 U.N. member states and approximately 4,700
U.N. staff. The existing U.N. facilities do not conform to current
safety, fire, and building codes and do not meet U.N. technical or
security requirements.
The Department is not involved in the redevelopment of the World
Trade Center (WTC) site and would refer you to the New York City
Economic Development Corporation for the actual figures relating to
that redevelopment project. We understand, however, that the total
costs for the redevelopment will be significantly higher than the $350
million figure, which we understand may only represent an estimate for
the cost of the World Trade Center Memorial (as distinct from the
facilities cited in your question).
Question. The fiscal year 2007 State Department Appropriations Bill
required the Secretary of State to notify Congress 15 days before the
United States votes in the U.N. Security Council to establish or expand
a peacekeeping mission. Mr. Secretary, since we have to fund these
missions, do you believe Congress should have a more formal role in the
decisions leading up to the Security Council votes? Wouldn't this
lessen the need for Members of Congress to place ``holds'' in order to
effect change in these missions?
Answer. Pursuant to legislation, the Administration provides
monthly briefings to Appropriations and Authorization Committee staffs
on current and prospective peacekeeping missions and information
related to expenditures from the Contributions to International
Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) appropriation. The Administration also
provides formal Congressional notifications for proposed votes in the
U.N. Security Council for new or expanded missions. We believe
information provided provides sufficient information to permit the
Appropriations Committees to exercise its Constitutionally-required
responsibilities.
Question. At the hearing, I raised the point that the American
taxpayers have contributed more than $800 million to the U.N.
peacekeeping mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This
mission is very important to France, and the United States has
cooperated with the mission in every way. The Iraq resolution was
important to the United States, and yet French negotiators took every
opportunity to undermine U.S. efforts towards that end.
Mr. Secretary, you indicated in your testimony that we should not
break ties with our allies in one area merely because we are in
disagreement with them in another area. Do you not support the concept
of issue-linkage? Would you agree that issue-linkage is one of our most
important diplomatic tools?
If, in the case of the Congo peacekeeping mission, you believed
that continued U.S. participation was vital to U.S. national interests,
could you give me other examples of where the United States employed
issue-linkage to try to elicit greater cooperation from the French (and
Germans) in the U.N. Security Council negotiations over an Iraq
resolution?
Answer. The United States supported establishment and continuation
of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, and requested funding to pay for our portion of U.N.
peacekeeping assessments, because we believed, and continue to believe,
that MONUC can contribute to restoration of stability in this critical
African nation, which can help remove this destabilizing factor in
Central Africa. You are correct that support to MONUC was an issue of
high importance to France, but it is also an issue of high importance
to the United States.
As I have said publicly, France's intransigence in the United
Nations Security Council on a resolution to follow UNSCR 1441 has
consequences for our future relationship. There will be issues of
special importance to France where we will seek to get their attention,
but we should not fail to act on issues of manifest interest to the
United States.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Late last congress, I joined with Senators Biden and
Lugar in sponsoring the ``Nuclear and Radiological Threat Reduction
Act.'' This legislation would authorize the Secretary of State to take
specific steps to prevent the use of dirty bombs as a terrorist weapon.
It is my understanding that this bill is likely to be introduced again
this Congress.
Also in the 107th Congress, the Senate passed my legislation
authorizing the National Nuclear Security Administration to take the
lead in the Department of Energy's strategy for combating radiological
terrorism. Enhanced technology, mitigation systems and international
cooperative efforts are a few of the mechanisms prescribed by my bill
to better safeguard nuclear materials that are being sought by
terrorists.
In addition, my bill, which is now law, calls for greater
coordination between all Federal departments and agencies with
responsibilities for nonproliferation.
Given the significant roles of both the State and Energy
Departments in addressing issues of nonproliferation, I believe there
is opportunity for tremendous synergy between them in addressing the
problem of nuclear terrorism.
Would you offer your thoughts about how the Department of State and
the Department of Energy can more effectively coordinate efforts so as
to maximize our progress on this issue?
Answer. In combating radiological terrorism, coordination between
the Department of State, NNSA and other agencies has improved regarding
the detection of illicit nuclear and radioactive materials. Working
with NNSA, the Department of State has taken the lead with NNSA/Second
Line of Defense (SLD) in organizing an inter-agency effort by the
Department of Homeland Security, State, Energy and the Department of
Defense to develop a strategy for assisting key countries overseas in
their detection of illicit nuclear materials. NNSA/Second Line of
Defense assisted greatly in the drafting of an USG interagency
strategic plan for provision of radiation detection equipment, which
provides an action plan and performance measures to guide our efforts
on this key anti-terrorism/nonproliferation initiative.
State and NNSA are also executing a joint plan for maintaining,
repairing and replacing radiation detection equipment the USG has
provided to foreign countries in recent years. In 2002-2003, this
program, using SLD assets, was very successful in performing required
maintenance and re-training in several countries where equipment has
been in active use for some time.
Yet much remains to be accomplished in terms of denying terrorists
access to high-risk radioactive sources. With your help, NNSA has made
a good start on securing these sources. As you have stated, there is
indeed an opportunity for tremendous synergy between the Department of
State and NNSA.
We believe that a diplomatic solution is the key to a meaningful
long-term solution. The security of radioactive sources depends on
convincing states to change the fundamental ways that they manage and
secure sources. Governments must agree, and be committed, to secure
high-risk radioactive sources and keep them secure throughout their
life cycle. The Department of State has a history of engaging foreign
governments at the highest levels to secure these types of commitments.
More broadly, we are using the Nonproliferation and Disarmament
Fund (NDF) to tackle tough, urgent and often unanticipated problems on
a worldwide basis. We expect that NDF in the future could be used to
help countries develop infrastructures to secure radioactive sources
and track dangerous materials, including through the NDF's existing
``Tracker'' automated software system that helps governments strengthen
control over sensitive exports. We hope that requested fiscal year 2004
increases in NDF funding will support the Department's Dangerous
Materials Initiative (DMI) to secure radioactive materials, pathogens
and sensitive precursors. DMI aims for synergies among U.S. Government
agencies and programs and also with international partners.
We believe that an ongoing dialogue between NNSA and the Department
of State, along with other relevant agencies, is necessary so that
technical and diplomatic efforts can be combined to ensure that high-
risk radioactive sources are secured over the long term.
RUSSIA AND IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Question. I remain concerned about Iran's drive to obtain a nuclear
capability. Despite its claims to the contrary, Iran's construction of
new nuclear facilities along with announced plans to mine uranium point
to its growing ambition to advance a nuclear weapons program.
Russia's technical assistance to Iran's nuclear program has been a
source of frustration for the United States. It has hastened Iran's
efforts while slowing development of the new strategic partnership
between Russia and the United States.
It is my understanding that State Department officials were
recently in Moscow to discuss arms control issues in general and the
Iranian nuclear matter specifically.
Can you report on the substance of those discussions? Do the
Russians share our concerns about the prospects of a nuclear-armed
Iran? Have they indicated a willingness to consider terminating their
support of the Iranian program?
Answer. We raise the subject of ending Russian nuclear cooperation
with Iran at every opportunity with senior Russian officials.
In these meetings, the Russians have professed to share our concern
about the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran. And recent revelations
about the extent of the Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons have
been very useful in making clear to Moscow that Tehran is indeed
pursuing this objective.
We appear to be making some progress in our discussions in curbing
Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran. The Russians have agreed to
some measures that mitigate the nonproliferation risks of their
cooperation--such as providing fuel for the lifetime of the Bushehr
reactor as well as taking back all the spent fuel to obviate any
rationale for Iran to develop fuel cycle facilities.
Much remains to be done, however. We continue to press the Russians
to agree to end all their nuclear cooperation with Iran and more
effectively prevent Russian entities from cooperating in other
sensitive areas such as missile technology.
ANTITERRORISM TRAINING
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have just joined with Congressman Steve
Pearce and Senator Bingaman in a letter to you to urge that the
Department reinstate two anti-terrorism training programs at the New
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, New Mexico. At
the end of last year, the State Department notified New Mexico Tech the
Hostage Negotiation course was being relocated to Louisiana State
University, which is a partner with New Mexico Tech in the ATA
programs. Then this past January, New Mexico Tech was notified by the
State Department that the Rural Border Patrol Operations program was
being terminated and moved elsewhere. This is a mistake. The community
of Socorro and the university have operated very successful ATA
programs for the State Department. Both have invested significantly in
facilities to accommodate these programs, and they have been very well
received by the foreign dignitaries and officials receiving this
training. The decision to relocate these programs will significantly
impact the local economy. These programs follow successful New Mexico
Tech training for the nation's first responders as one of four training
partners in the Office of Domestic Preparedness and the National
Consortium on Domestic Preparedness for the Department of Justice. I
see no valid reason why these programs should be relocated, nor were
explanations give to New Mexico Tech for this change.
(A) Mr. Secretary, I understand that the State Department official
that recently ordered the relocation of the Rural Border Patrol
Operations course did not have the authority to do so. I am now told
that this decision has been put on hold, but that the intention is
still to move forward with this proposal through regular channels. Will
you please take a look at the attached letter and investigate this
matter for me? I would urge you to keep the Rural Border Patrol
Operations Course right where it has been successfully run for the past
several years--at New Mexico Tech in Socorro, New Mexico.
(B) Will you please also investigate the decision that was made to
relocate the Hostage Negotiation course to Louisiana State University?
While the universities work very closely on these programs, they each
have unique capabilities which they bring to the anti-terrorism
assistance programs.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2003.
The Honorable Colin L. Powell,
Department of State, 2201 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20520.
Dear Secretary Powell: We write regarding the Antiterrorism
Assistance (ATA) training program involving Louisiana State University
(LSU) and New Mexico Tech (NMT). We are deeply concerned about the
Department of State's (DoS) decision to terminate the Rural Border
Patrol Operations training program at NMT. Our concerns are further
heightened by the fact that the Hostage Negotiations program at NMT was
terminated last year.
Until the end of 2002, NMT successfully conducted both courses
under a cooperative agreement between ATA and LSU and a subcontract
between LSU and NMT. Before year end, LSU (at the direction of ATA)
notified NMT that Hostage Negotiations training would relocate to LSU
effective January 2003. At the time, NMT was led to believe that the
loss of the Hostage Negotiations training program would be offset by
increased activity in the Rural Border Patrol Operations course,
thereby resulting in a program neutral change. However, NMT funding for
both training programs has dwindled from approximately $1.7 million in
fiscal year 2001 to an estimated $900,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Obviously, the decision recently announced to relocate the Rural Border
Patrol Operations course will eliminate any chance for a program
neutral change and will instead have a significant negative financial
impact on NMT.
We are aware of the limited resources available to carry out this
and other ATA activities during these critical times. Thus, it is
imperative that our best resources are marshaled to provide important
training to our allies in foreign countries. We believe the ATA
training made available to these countries is important to their
security and critical to our country as the front line of defense to
antiterrorism activities. It is therefore incomprehensible to us that
decisions have been made to terminate this important program at NMT,
especially after NMT's success and contributions to the ATA program
were formally recognized in the letter from ATA directing the training
to be relocated.
The principal reason given by the DoS for its relocation of the
Rural Border Patrol Operations course was economic. ATA believes they
can achieve a measure of cost savings by consolidating training at
another location. It is important to note, however, that more dramatic
savings can more likely be realized by consolidating additional
training at NMT. We believe that the decision to terminate training at
NMT will not represent the greatest cost savings and ignores other
factors that impact on the economy and the overall quality of life of
our citizens.
It is also important for us to point out the considerable
investment in the ATA training program that has been made by both the
community of Socorro and NMT. These investments were made as a
commitment to a long-term, productive relationship with the ATA
program. First, NMT funded construction of a ``state-of-the-art'' small
arms range to provide first class support for the program. Second,
local businesses contributed to the success of the program by investing
in expansion of their facilities to accommodate students, faculty and
ATA representatives. Third, NMT provides an exclusive training area,
which consists of 3,137 acres, for the Rural Border Patrol Operations
training program at no cost to the ATA program.
In light of the above, we affirm our desire to continue the
successful ATA programs already established by NMT in Socorro, NM, and
for the DoS to fully use the existing infrastructure and prior
investments made to support these important programs. To re-establish
this program at DOE training facilities in Albuquerque may require
substantial investment of scarce funds and may require entry to a
military installation where, due to heightened security restrictions,
guaranteed access by foreign nationals could be limited, as was ATA
student access to facilities on some military installations immediately
following September 11th.
The Department of State should take immediate action to accomplish
the following actions:
--Reverse the decision to relocate the Rural Border Patrol Operations
training away from NMT.
--Reestablish Hostage Negotiation (or a comparable training course)
at NMT.
--Use the unique facilities of NMT to support a Large Scale Terrorist
Bombing course or similar training program.
--Relocate the office of the ATA New Mexico representative from
Albuquerque to Socorro, NM.
These actions would help realize actual cost savings in the ATA
program and permit full utilization of existing (and proven) high
quality training facilities at NMT, thus eliminating costs associated
with duplicating such facilities at new training locations.
We greatly appreciate your attention to this time sensitive request
and look forward to your swift response. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact Ricardo Bernal of Rep. Steve Pearce's staff
at (202) 225-2365.
Sincerely,
Stevan Pearce,
Member of Congress.
Pete Domenici,
United States Senator.
Jeff Bingaman,
United States Senator.
Answer. The Department has not made a final decision to relocate
the Rural Border Patrol Operations course from New Mexico Tech. The
Hostage Negotiations course was moved to Louisiana State University so
that it could be co-located with the Advanced Crisis Response Team
(SWAT) course that is taught there, where specialized facilities are
available. Both courses end in a capstone joint exercise involving
hostage negotiation and hostage rescue.
New Mexico Tech has a sub-grant of a cooperative agreement between
Louisiana State University and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security that
is renewable each year. Diplomatic Security regularly reviews these
agreements and compares costs for providing courses among various
service providers. Recently, as a matter of fact, a course that was
once taught in Washington state was relocated to a New Mexico facility.
We would be happy to provide you or your staff with a detailed
briefing on the consideration of this matter prior to any final
decision.
Question. Would you please tell the Subcommittee the Department's
plans to fund the International Law Enforcement Academies in fiscal
year 2003 under the omnibus appropriations bill?
Are there sufficient funds to adequately support the operation of
the ILEAs for the remainder of the fiscal year? If not, what
adjustments does the Department plan to make in ILEA operating plans?
Answer. The Department plans to continue to support the work of the
established ILEAs in Bangkok, Budapest, Gaborone and Roswell. The level
of funding will be approximately $3.5 million each for Bangkok,
Budapest and Gaborone and $5 million for Roswell. In addition, $2
million will provide initial funding for the development of the newest
ILEA for Latin America. Existing funds can adequately support the
current level of operations at all the ILEAs. No adjustments are
necessary.
Question. The conferees endorsed Senate and House report language
regarding ILEA, and stated the expectation that the Administration
provide sufficient funding to complete the Roswell Center where there
is a building currently under construction. Can you please tell me what
the status of that project is, and when it is expected to be completed?
Answer. The Department has $3.5 million available for the
construction of a new building at the Roswell facility. The New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology has been instructed to present a
proposal including detailed information and specifications, as required
by statute for any building project, for review and approval. This type
of building project typically takes 12 to 18 months to complete.
Question. Under the President's fiscal year 2004 budget requests
for International Law Enforcement and Narcotics Control, what are the
Department's plans to fund each of the ILEA programs? Would you please
provide the Subcommittee with the details on the proposed ILEA training
for the upcoming fiscal year?
Answer. The level of funding will be approximately $2.9 million
each for Bangkok, $3.2 million for Budapest, $2.7 million for Gaborone,
$5 million for Roswell and $3.3 million for San Jose. This funding will
allow for continuing operations--at a reduced training tempo in the
regional academies--based on fiscal year 2003 spending levels. No new
initiatives are possible without additional funding.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. Last October, I wrote to the Department, along with
several colleagues from the Helsinki Commission, concerning Ukrainian
President Kuchma's approval of the transfer to Iraq of the Kolchuga
[COL-chew-ga] radar system.
Have efforts been made to investigate possible financial benefit on
the part of President Kuchma or his associates in connection with the
Kolchuga affair?
Has the Ukrainian government given indications of cooperating in
resolving the problem of transfers of military equipment to rogue
states such as Iraq?
Answer. Although we remain convinced that President Kuchma
authorized the transfer of Kolchuga to Iraq, we do not know if the
transfer actually occurred. We are not aware of any violations of U.S.
law in connection with payments President Kuchma or any other Ukrainian
official might have received in connection with any transfer of the
Kolchuga system to Iraq.
The Kolchuga incident exposed serious weaknesses in Ukraine's arms
export control system. The United States is working jointly with
several other governments in a cooperative effort to strengthen
Ukraine's export control system, enforcement, and oversight of defense
industries and transshippers. We continue to engage the Government of
Ukraine on these issues and are intensifying our diplomacy. As a result
of our diplomatic efforts and pressure, the Ukrainian government has
undertaken a number of preliminary structural reforms in the arms
export industry that enhance nonproliferation. The Ukrainian parliament
(Rada) also recently passed a new export control law that could
contribute to stronger safeguards. We will be working with the
Government of Ukraine to support effective implementation of its export
control law and regulations in addition to pushing for continued
structural reform.
Question. We have seen disturbing reports that Belarus, Bulgaria,
Bosnian Serbs and Serbia have also been actively involved with arms
trade to Iraq. I am particularly disturbed over Belarus under
Lukashenka--the last dictator in Europe and will soon introduce the
Belarus Democracy Act in the Senate.
How serious do you regard the problem of arms transfers to Iraq
from other OSCE countries of the Former Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe?
While I understand some progress has been made in shutting off a
notorious Serbian connection, are we making satisfactory progress with
these other suppliers?
Is the United States pursuing the issue of arms transfers within
the OSCE framework?
Answer. U.S. strategy to halt military assistance and gray arms
transfers from Eastern and Central Europe and Eurasia to Saddam
Hussein's Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism has been a quiet,
but significant, success for U.S. national security. Since July 2001,
the United States has invested substantial diplomatic and intelligence
resources in implementing nonproliferation strategies for states in
this region, including for each of the NATO invitees. Relying on the
tools of coordinated diplomacy, information sharing, interdiction, and
coordinated assistance, our efforts to strengthen border security and
encourage responsible export control policies in Eastern and Central
Europe and Eurasia have worked remarkably well.
Our cooperation with Serbia and Montenegro and Bulgaria in
particular mirrors the very successful nonproliferation strategies
pursued in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The fruitful partnerships
that developed as a result of this strategy proved invaluable to our
efforts in Operation Iraqi Freedom and continue to play a significant
role in the global war on terrorism.
We are beginning to implement a synthesized approach to border
security and nonproliferation cooperation in the Balkans, with support
from many in Congress. The Department also continues to execute an
effective small arms and light weapons destruction program. This
program has destroyed 230,000 surplus weapons and several tons of
ammunition in Albania, Bulgaria, and Serbia and Montenegro, and will
destroy similar amounts in Bulgaria and Romania this year. Our
diplomatic efforts have also resulted in virtually all Eastern and
Central European governments vetting proposed arms sales and transfers
with the USG. The United States has sought to use the OSCE to reinforce
our work on conventional arms transfers in order fora, and to cement
principles and good practices associated with arms transfers among the
members of OSCE states. This effort dates back to agreement in 1993 on
Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, but became more
focused at the 1999 Istanbul OSCE Summit with the OSCE Document on
Small Arms and Light Weapons. The specific measures contained in the
Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons go beyond the earlier
statement of general principles--firmly based on U.S. principles and
practices--and provide a concrete basis for U.S. efforts to encourage
institute good practices among our OSCE partners in this regard.
We are at an important point in implementing this strategy. We have
begun to steer Eastern Europe away from the arms markets and military
cooperation of the past toward productive areas for the future. These
positive changes will contribute not only to our efforts to cut off
supply lines to terrorists, but also to our goal of supporting further
integration into western security and defense institutions. We will
continue to work within the effective framework of bilateral and
multilateral relationships, including the Wassenaar Arrangement, NATO,
and the G-8, to ensure the sustained improvement in arms transfer
policies in all OSCE countries.
Question. Mr. Secretary, despite our frustration and disappointment
with President Kuchma and his associates in Ukraine, it is important
that we continue to assist those elements of Ukrainian society striving
for democracy, rule of law and Euro-Atlantic integration.
Cuts in Voice of America and Radio Liberty programming to Ukraine
have been proposed. Isn't this a premature move, given the poor
environment for independent media there especially in the run-up to
next year's presidential elections?
Answer. We share your views on the critical importance of
developing a strong civil society in Ukraine, and on the important
contributions made by Voice of America and especially Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). In the interest of seeing a free and
fair 2004 presidential election in Ukraine, in which all major
candidates have access to the media, the role of the Ukrainian service
of RFE/RL is especially vital. This is a central goal of U.S. policy
towards Ukraine.
In March, Under Secretary Beers sent a letter to the Chairman of
the Board of Broadcast Governors (BBG) expressing our concerns about
rumored reductions in staffing and operational funding for RFE/RL's
Ukrainian language service. We also briefed the BBG on the results of
our Ukraine policy review, which called for greater support for
independent media in Ukraine. The Chairman, Mr. Tomlinson, assured us
that no reductions for RFE/RL were contemplated.
Question. As Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I recently
introduced a bipartisan resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) concerning anti-
Semitism and related violence in the OSCE region.
What actions is the Department taking to ensure that our friends
are doing everything possible to confront such attacks, prosecute and
publicly denounce such violence?
The Porto OSCE ministerial called for a meeting focused
specifically on anti-Semitism, a subject high on the Helsinki
Commission agenda. Is that meeting on track to take place?
Answer. The Department of State is concerned about the increase in
anti-Semitic violence in the OSCE region. We have made combating anti-
Semitism a priority for our diplomacy throughout the region and
especially at the OSCE.
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly led the way on this issue by
issuing a statement at the Berlin summer session last July highlighting
the need for vigilance and governmental attention to the problem of
anti-Semitic activities.
Our success at the Ministerial meeting in Porto in scheduling an
OSCE meeting on anti-Semitism is in large part a result of the work
done on this issue by the Parliamentary Assembly.
Through the OSCE Permanent Council and on a bilateral basis we
raise incidents of anti-Semitic violence or policies with the
governments concerned.
The OSCE meeting on anti-Semitism scheduled for June 2003, will be
a forum to discuss best practices in the fight against anti-Semitic
violence and tendencies in societies. The U.S. delegation, to include
prominent governmental officials and private individuals, will be
robust and will reflect the importance we place on this conference.
Question. Mr. Secretary there have been reports in the media
suggesting that the United States is allowing, if not encouraging,
other countries to torture individuals suspected of involvement in
terrorism. In his State of the Union Address, the President described
the horrific forms of torture employed by the Hussein regime and
concluded, ``if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.'' Can you
clarify what the U.S. policy is with respect to torture in the war
against terrorism?
Answer. The United States condemns and prohibits torture. The
President recently reaffirmed this to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The Department of Defense General
Counsel has further advised in a letter on the subject addressed to
Human Rights Watch that:
--(1) When questioning enemy combatants, U.S. personnel are required
to follow this policy and applicable U.S. laws prohibiting
torture.
--(2) With respect to the transfer of detained enemy combatants to
other countries for continued detention, U.S. Government
instructions are to seek and obtain appropriate assurances that
such enemy combatants are not tortured.
--(3) U.S. Government personnel are instructed to report allegations
of mistreatment of or injuries to detained enemy combatants,
and to investigate any such reports.
--(4) U.S. Government officials investigate any known reports of
mistreatment or injuries to detainees.
The United States does not condone torture and is committed to
protecting human rights as well as protecting the people of the United
States and other countries against terrorism of global reach.
Question. A year ago I asked you what action might be taken against
OSCE countries like Turkmenistan who flagrantly violate their human
rights commitments. I understand that the situation has only
deteriorated further over the past year. What is the Department doing
to address these developments?
Answer. The human rights situation has continued to deteriorate in
Turkmenistan, particularly since the November 2002 attack against
President Niyazov's motorcade. The United States is deeply concerned
about the human rights situation in Turkmenistan, and we have embarked
on a number of bilateral and multilateral initiatives to address the
problems there.
We have raised our human rights concerns directly with President
Niyazov and other senior officials in Turkmenistan on a number of
occasions, as well as the Turkmen Ambassador in Washington. In those
conversations, we especially discussed the conduct of the Turkmenistan
Government during its investigation of the November incident. We have
also encouraged other countries to raise the matter with the Government
of Turkmenistan.
We have also vigorously pursued multilateral efforts to improve
Turkmenistan's human rights record. In December 2002, the United States
joined other OSCE member states to invoke the rarely used ``Moscow
Mechanism,'' requiring the Government of Turkmenistan to reply in
writing to a request for information on the whereabouts and conditions
of those arrested. Ashgabat failed to respond adequately, thereby
bringing into motion the second stage of the Moscow Mechanism--the
sending of a fact-finding team to Ashgabat to report on the situation.
Under its OSCE commitments, the Government of Turkmenistan is obliged
to accept a visit by the team and must appoint one member to the team.
Despite this obligation, the Government of Turkmenistan did not
cooperate, and the OSCE team had to investigate the matter without
assistance.
On March 13, 2003, the OSCE Moscow Mechanism Rapporteur submitted
his report on abuses in Turkmenistan following the November attack on
President Niyazov. The report condemned the attack itself, catalogued a
range of grave human rights abuses following the attack, and publicly
called on Turkmenistan to make reforms and work with the OSCE to
address the problems. Turkmenistan has rejected the findings of the
report.
The United States also co-sponsored an April 2003 United Nations
Human Rights Commission resolution condemning Turkmenistan for a range
of human rights abuses including torture and political and religious
repression. In particular, the resolution cited abuses in the crackdown
following the November incident. We hope this resolution will encourage
reforms in Turkmenistan and enhance U.N. engagement on this issue.
The United States is committed to sustained diplomatic engagement
with Turkmenistan to press for fundamental political, economic, and
societal reforms, and to push Turkmenistan to develop a healthy respect
for human rights in accord with its U.N. and OSCE obligations. The
development of such reforms is inextricably tied to security,
stability, and prosperity in Turkmenistan. Understanding that
significant political change will take time, we have increased our
assistance programs that promote democratic freedoms, including human
rights, civil society and rule of law.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
COST SHARING INITIATIVE
Question. Is the program voluntary or mandatory?
Answer. The Administration's Security Capital Cost Sharing Program
will be mandatory for all agencies under Chief of Mission authority. As
envisioned, agencies, including the Department of State and ICASS, will
be required to pay on a per capita basis for each authorized overseas
position. It is an Administration initiative that is part of the
President's Management agenda. It aligns costs with the overseas
assignment process and is a significant right-sizing initiative. It is
also consistent with the OPAP recommendations. This approach is
reflected in the Foreign Affairs Authorization Bills now being
considered by both the Senate and House.
Question. How are you going to guarantee that other agencies will
reimburse the Department through the Cost Sharing Program?
Answer. The legislation now being considered (S. 925 and H.R. 1950)
would authorize State to collect the amounts due automatically through
the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection System, which is the same
way GSA collects rent for domestic buildings. Payment and collection
would not be contingent on a particular cost sharing appropriation to
an agency.
Question. What specifically is the $120 million for?
Answer. All cost sharing funds will be used solely for the
construction of secure, safe, and functional New Embassy Compounds
(NEC), in accordance with the Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan. The
fiscal year 2004 funds will help fund the NEC's identified in the
President's fiscal year 2004 Budget. The $120 million includes State's
cost share of $64 million and $56 million for other agencies' cost
share. The actual transfer of funds from agencies will begin in fiscal
year 2005 and will be fully phased in by fiscal year 2009.
Question. You propose to phase the program in over 5 years. Does
this mean that DOS shoulders the expense for the next 5 years?
Answer. Under this program, State will not have to shoulder all the
expense for the next 5 years. State has traditionally provided 100
percent of the capital cost of New Embassy Compounds (NEC), and even
when the Cost Sharing Program is fully phased in, the Department will
be responsible for about two-thirds of the total budget based on its
overseas positions. The 5-year phase-in period will allow other
agencies time to rationalize their overseas presence, deciding either
to increase their budgets for overseas activities or reduce the numbers
of their least essential personnel overseas. The Department of State
would also be making the same judgments about its own staffing in light
of the larger financial consequences of maintaining positions overseas.
The Administration believes that the 5-year phase-in is a practical
accommodation to account for a significant change in the Government's
approach to funding the construction of approximately 150 New Embassy
Compounds over the next 12 to 14 years.
Question. Would you provide the Committee with a breakout of DOS
costs and costs of participating agencies for each of the next 5 years?
Answer. The breakout of Department of State costs and costs of
participating agencies currently available are based on data collected
almost two years ago. The Department has recently collected fresh data
and is now computing new cost figures. As soon as they are available,
we will make them available to the committee. We anticipate they will
be ready in late June.
USAID FACILITIES
Question. Why did State decide to request additional funding for
USAID facilities through CJS, when Congress has consistently not
supported this approach?
Answer. The Department of State and the Administration are strongly
committed to ensuring that USAID is also provided with secure, safe,
and functional facilities. The Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act of 1999 requires all agencies, and therefore USAID
as well, to be located on the embassy compound. This also allows for
economies of scale resulting from concurrent construction. We are eager
to work with the Congress to achieve this legislated mandate.
Previous budget submissions have requested full funding from the
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittees and from the
Foreign Operations Subcommittees in different years, and neither
subcommittee has been willing to fund USAID buildings. The fiscal year
2004 budget request places the ``catch up'' projects that should have
accompanied the already funded New Embassy Compounds (NECs) in the
Foreign Operations budget request. USAID facilities that will accompany
the proposed NECs are included in the CJS budget request.
The Administration's proposed Security Capital Cost Sharing Program
should render the USAID facilities funding issue moot since USAID, like
other agencies, will pay into the program for the space they need.
BERLIN/FRANKFURT FACILITIES
Question. What steps are you taking to ensure that the facility
will remain safe in light of the fact that you will not know who owns
property inches away from the embassy wall?
Answer. The new embassy in Berlin will be built to withstand
catastrophic and progressive collapse from blast, and is being designed
with buffer spaces between the building and the contiguous buildings.
Additionally, our design features non-office space such as elevator
shafts and mechanical rooms located along the space contiguous with
adjacent buildings, to the maximum extent feasible.
Question. Will you know who purchases the condominiums next door?
Answer. Our security and intelligence units keep in close contact
with German security and intelligence services, as well as building
owners and landlords. It is in all of our interests to provide safety
and security for not only our facility, but for the Germans and German
facilities close to ours. The German authorities and the owners of the
adjacent buildings appreciate our concerns and we foresee a very high
level of cooperation to address this issue.
Question. If you are capable of building a structure within inches
of private property without any knowledge of who owns that property,
then do we truly need the 100-foot setback requirement?
Answer. The location of our new Embassy in Berlin is a unique
opportunity to build a chancery on a historic and prestigious site. It
is not without security challenges, but both the Department and German
authorities are working to provide an adequate level of security. While
the site does have contiguous buildings, we are working to mitigate the
threat from the buildings using both physical and procedural methods.
It should also be noted that we are working with the Germans to ensure
that uninspected vehicles on the roads around the chancery are kept at
a distance of no less than 82 feet. The chancery will be built
stronger, to the same level of protection as if it had 100 feet of
setback.
While certain waivers will be signed for this particular chancery
building, the normal requirement for 100 feet of setback has allowed
the Department to construct safe and secure facilities in many
countries in the world that may not provide the same level of
cooperation or have the same capabilities as the German government.
Congress wisely included a waiver process in the Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act, and that process will be used
only when appropriate. The 100-foot requirement is still valid.
Question. What steps are you taking to secure the property where
the subway runs?
Answer. The subway does not run under the building. It does run
under the Pariser Platz in front of the chancery. There is an emergency
escape tunnel from the subway with an exit in the street approximately
60 feet in front of the embassy, which would open into an area where
the public has free pedestrian circulation. We do not consider the
subway a vulnerability.
Question. Given the current climate and anti-American sentiment in
Germany because of the potential war with Iraq, do you still feel as
certain about maintaining the security of the facility today as you did
one year ago?
Answer. While there were differences in our positions over Iraq,
the Germans provided excellent security for our existing facilities
throughout this period of heightened threat. I have no doubt that they
will continue to honor their security responsibilities and provide us
with excellent services and support. The decision to build on Pariser
Platz was taken only after careful consideration, with the condition
that security issues be adequately addressed. We continue to move
toward that goal.
Question. When will you actually sign the waiver for the security
requirements?
Answer. The waiver will be signed when the Department is assured
that security issues have been adequately addressed.
EVALUATING THE HIRING INITIATIVE
Question. Since the whole notion of the 1,158-position Hiring
Initiative was to meet DOS's high priority needs, why are the 68
additional positions needed for Consular Activities not absorbed in the
Hiring Initiative?
Answer. The Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) request was
introduced as a three-year plan by Secretary of State Powell in 2001 to
fill gaps created by underhiring in relation to workload in the 1990's.
The DRI addresses many of our core needs, some of which are determined
by our Overseas Staffing Model and training requirements. However, some
personnel requirements are assessed and resources requested separately
such as security, IT, and consular which tend to have specific needs
due to outside events.
It did not take into account the additional requirements that would
follow from the events of September 11th. Currently, the Department is
assessing future personnel needs taking into account the long-term
needs of the Department, to include the implications following the
events of September 11th.
The 68 CA positions that are referenced in the question represent
new positions not originally contemplated in the DRI. These positions
will be used to replace temporary consular associates with full-time
consular officers. This is a critical element in the Department's'
efforts to support homeland security initiatives.
Additionally, Consular positions have traditionally been funded
through the MRV fees collected by the Department. Post September 11,
travel has decreased and therefore so has MRV income. This means that
we need to request appropriated funds for these additional personnel
requirements.
Question. Does the Department support, as you stated in the letter
of May 22, 2002, a comprehensive plan for compensation?
Answer. Yes. We have stated on many occasions that we favor a
comprehensive approach to compensation for U.S. victims of
international terrorism. We sympathize greatly with suffering endured
by U.S. victims of terrorism and their families, including the 1979
Tehran hostages. We support a comprehensive program that allows them to
receive quick payments in their time of need.
The current ad hoc, piecemeal legislative approach, however, which
depends on the vagaries of litigation, does not work. It is not fair
and equitable, as it has provided some victims or categories of victims
with compensation and has left others with nothing.
Deputy Secretary Armitage's letter to Congress, dated June 12,
2002, laid out the Administration's principles for a comprehensive
plan. The letter stated that such a plan should provide compensation on
par with that for death or injury to public safety officers killed in
the line of duty in a quick, streamlined and simple claims process,
without regard to income. It stated further that such a comprehensive
plan should preserve the President's ability to conduct foreign policy
by not using blocked assets to fund victims compensation.
Question. Since you have drafted something, perhaps you would like
to share with the committee exactly what you propose to do to
compensate the original 52 hostages?
Answer. First, some background on this issue is helpful. This is
not the first time that Congress or the President has considered the
question of compensation for the 1979 hostages. In 1980, Congress
passed the Hostage Relief Act, which provided compensation with respect
to the hostages' tax liabilities and other benefits in 1980. After the
Algiers Accords were entered into in 1981, which waived the hostages'
claims in order to secure their release from captivity, and after
extensive hearings were held in both houses of Congress on the Accords
as a whole and on this waiver in particular, the President established
a special commission to make recommendations to the Congress as to how
the hostages should be compensated for their ordeal.
The President's Commission issued its Final Report and
Recommendations on Hostage Compensation in 1981. It recommended that
the hostages receive a certain amount of compensation and other
benefits. In 1986, the Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act was passed
and enacted into law. Section 802 and 803 of that act provided for
additional compensation and benefits to the hostages. I understand that
all of the hostages received compensation according to the directives
of that act.
Deputy Secretary Armitage's letter to Congress of June 12, 2002,
outlined the Administration's principles for a comprehensive
compensation plan. Because the plan is designed to address compensation
for all U.S. victims of international terrorism, it does not single out
any particular group or category, such as the 1979 hostages.
Question. When can we expect to see such a proposal?
When was the proposal submitted to OMB? What steps are you taking
to the proposal released from OMB?
Answer. The submission of a proposal and its timing depend on OMB.
We have been working with OMB for some time to develop such a proposal.
In November 2001, we sent a draft proposal to OMB that could be
circulated for inter-agency review. Our discussions with OMB ultimately
resulted in the letter that Deputy Secretary Armitage sent to Congress
last June. Following my oral testimony in March, I sent a letter to
then-OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, urging that OMB complete its review
of our draft proposal as soon as possible. We have been in further
discussions about this with OMB and the White House. We have made
progress, and I am hopeful that these discussions will result in a
proposal that is worked out between the Administration and Congress
soon.
Question. To date, how much funding has the Department of State
expended on defending Iran--a known terrorist state--in court against
American citizens?
Answer. None. We have made appearances in proceedings in U.S. court
to protect the interests of the United States. Unfortunately,
plaintiffs' lawyers have sometimes mischaracterized our actions. In the
Roeder v. Iran case in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, Judge Sullivan noted in his decision,
``Plaintiffs consistently mischaracterize the nature of the
interest asserted by the United States. The United States is not
seeking to vindicate Iran's interests, but rather its own commitment
under a binding international agreement, and its ever-present interest
in the enforcement of its laws.''
Judge Sullivan recognized that we had appeared in the litigation to
protect U.S. interests in light of our obligations in the Algiers
Accords.
I would also like to address certain statements made by Senator
Harkin concerning the Algiers Accords in recent congressional hearings.
He suggested that the Algiers Accords should not have any binding
effect, asserting that they were never a treaty ratified by the Senate
and because they resulted from blackmail.
After the Algiers Accords were signed, and after the hostages were
released, Congress had extensive hearings on the Accords in both
houses. Former Deputy Secretary Warren Christopher, who was the lead
negotiator for the United States, recounted in his testimony how he had
reported to the then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee ``on nearly a
daily basis'' concerning the ongoing negotiations. As reflected in the
hearings, the Accords and the negotiators received overwhelming
bipartisan support and praise. For example, the Chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Zablocki, stated, ``The agreements
preserved the honor of the United States and secured the safe release
of the hostages.'' The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Percy, also stated, ``President Reagan has
determined that Presidential authority did exist and does exist to
implement these agreements and it is in the best interests of the
United States of America that we honor them. I applaud this decision by
President Reagan and Secretary Haig.'' And the Supreme Court noted
Congress' approval of the Algiers Accords in its decision in Dames &
Moore.
Upholding U.S. obligations in the Algiers Accords is in the
interests of the United States, and it is those interests that the
United States has sought to protect by appearing in court in these
cases.
Question. What other terrorist states or organizations has the
Department of State defended in court?
How much has been expended on those cases?
Answer. None.
DOLPHIN-SAFE TUNA
Question. With all due respect, doesn't NMFS have greater
scientific expertise than the Department of State to make this decision
as to whether the science supports changing the standard?
Answer. Yes. The Department of Commerce in general, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service in particular, has both the capacity
and the statutory responsibility to evaluate the scientific evidence
bearing on the issue of dolphin-safe tuna fishing. We understand that
the decision was made on this basis.
Question. Despite the clear science-based standard in the statute,
isn't it true that the Department of State believes that keeping Mexico
and other countries at the table in the international treaty on the
tuna fishery in the Eastern Tropical Pacific is an important factor in
deciding whether to change the U.S. law? Wasn't this view expressed to
the Department of Commerce?
Answer. At the end of 2002, the Secretary of Commerce had the
responsibility under the law in question to determine whether the purse
seine tuna fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean is having a significant
adverse impact on any of the depleted dolphin stocks in that region. As
you know, he found that the fishery is not having such an impact.
In advance of that finding, I wrote to Secretary Evans to describe
what the Department of State saw as a wide range of views of various
scientific organizations that were examining this issue and urged him
to weigh all the competing evidence carefully, as he certainly did.
The United States has a strong interest in maintaining the
International Dolphin Conservation Program, which has reduced dolphin
mortality in this fishery by 98 percent. However, the statutory
criteria on which the Secretary of Commerce made his finding relate
solely to the issue of whether the fishery is having a significant
adverse impact on dolphin stocks. The Department of State has not
argued otherwise.
Question. There have been serious concerns raised with respect to
the failure of certain member countries to comply with the
international agreement to reduce dolphin mortalities in the Eastern
Tropical Pacific. As a result of these concerns, the fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Appropriations bill includes language calling for a report to
Congress on compliance with the international agreement, and also
provides $750,000 of the budget for the Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs only for negotiating
measures to strengthen the IDCP. I hope you are taking our message
seriously.
Answer. The Department of State is aware of the concerns that some
have raised with respect to the implementation of the international
dolphin conservation program. Since the initial implementation of the
program, we have stressed to all participants the need for the highest
standards of compliance with the provisions of the agreement and have
worked to achieve this result in a number of ways. However, more can
and should be done. We will continue to work with the Department of
Commerce, Congress and affected U.S. constituent groups to pursue
effective implementation of this program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. Mr. Secretary, thank you for pursuing the Diplomatic
Readiness Initiative to fill staffing gaps in the Foreign Service and
Civil Service. Fiscal year 2004 will be the third and final year of the
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative.
The State Department authorization act (Public Law 107-228, at Sec.
301) requires that you submit to the Congress a comprehensive workforce
plan for the Department for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. We look
forward to receiving this workforce plan, which is due 180 days after
enactment of the Act. The world has changed considerably since the
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative targets were set two years ago, and we
expect changes in the State Department to be reflected in the workforce
plan.
Are Diplomatic Readiness Initiative targets still adequate to fill
the current and anticipated open positions at our diplomatic missions
and consular posts?
Will there be a sufficient number of Foreign Service personnel so
they can receive needed training without leaving positions unfilled?
Do you anticipate personnel shortfalls or unmet skills needs, which
would be identified in the workforce plan? Do you anticipate the need
to shift personnel, or problems in recruitment and retention, that the
subcommittee should be prepared to consider?
Answer. As mentioned, the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI)
program was intended to ``right-size'' the State Department staff
following a long period of under hiring in the mid-1990's. Events since
the initial DRI (developed in 2001) could support increases. We
anticipate that the next iteration of the Overseas Staffing Model will
take some of these events into consideration and we will also be
reviewing results of our analysis of the Domestic Staffing Model
results.
DRI was designed to help make it possible to plan for crises and to
have enough people to be able to reprioritize quickly within existing
resources; without enough people in the system, those who leave to
cover a crisis would leave major staffing gaps.
But for some of these new issues, they cease being crisis
requirements and become baseline requirements--such as an embassy in
Kabul and the increased consular workload.
We have had to use some of the DRI positions to cover new consular
needs in the wake of 9/11 when the workload went up even as MRV fees--
which have funded many consular position increases--went down. We have
also had increased visa processing requirements that have increased
workload while we have also striven to ensure that we have fully
trained commissioned Foreign Service Officers in all positions. In the
short run we have had to meet these new requirements within our current
workforce. These requirements will need to be met continuously, but the
original DRI did not envision these changes.
Even though we had to use some DRI positions for these unexpected
contingencies, we still need the personnel complement foreseen by DRI
to make training and future crisis response possible.
Question. A June 2002 General Accounting Office report on
Diplomatic Readiness at Hardship Posts, stated, ``According to State
officials and Foreign Service employees, the incentive provided by
differential (hardship) pay for overseas service has been diminished by
rules governing locality pay . . .. State has not analyzed the effect
that this difference has had since 1994 on the number of Foreign
Service employees who bid on overseas assignments, including hardship
posts. However, State Department officials, the American Foreign
Service Association, and many officers with whom we met said that this
gap penalizes overseas employees and that if it continues to grow, it
will inevitably keep employees from choosing an overseas career in the
Foreign Service . . .. We estimate that by 2006 and 2010, the
differential pay incentives from the 15 percent and 20 percent
differential posts, respectively, will be less than the locality pay
for Washington, D.C., assuming that the locality pay rate continues to
increase at about 1 percent per year.''
Do you believe the gap identified as a problem by GAO will result
in difficulty filling positions at hardship posts? If so, how can this
problem be addressed?
Answer. While our employees always step up to do what is needed, we
do believe that the overseas pay gap (now nearly 13 percent as
Washington, DC locality pay rose in 2003) has created serious morale
problems, causing employees to question our commitment to them as we
ask them to do ever more difficult and dangerous work overseas.
The hardship incentive--post ``differential''--is intended to both
compensate employees for difficult conditions as well as to provide an
incentive for service. It is not intended to make up for lost salary.
Hardship incentives to do not count as salary for the purposes of
annuity calculations or retirement fund contributions.
We believe that this inequity between overseas and domestic
salaries will make it harder for us to staff overseas posts--especially
hardship posts, but all posts. At nearly a quarter of our posts, even
including allowances such as hardship pay, salary is less than
Washington salaries.
Unlike the CIA, we do not currently have the legal authority to pay
employees overseas at the Washington, DC pay level. In addition, the
cost of doing so cannot be managed without additional appropriations.
We are working with the Administration on a solution to this inequity
and workforce management problem.
Question. At the time of the bombings of our embassies in east
Africa, about 88 percent of our embassies did not meet the Department's
basic safety standards (according to the Overseas Presence Advisory
Panel report).
After five years of a ten or eleven year plan to protect our posts
and missions abroad, what percentage now meets the Department's basis
safety standards?
Also, because of the changing nature of international terrorism, do
you believe additional funds are necessary to protect U.S. personnel
and their families in ``soft target'' environments such as
international schools attended by our children, churches and places of
entertainment frequented by American families, and even our housing
complexes?
Answer. In the immediate period after the embassy bombings,
Congressional funding and Department effort was focused on providing
immediate improvements to our existing facilities using the Emergency
Security Appropriation. These efforts provided necessary and timely
upgrades to our facilities, and were instrumental in protecting our
people in such places as Karachi from a car bomb attack. However, this
effort could not provide substantial improvements such as blast
resistant buildings and improvements in setback for most of our
buildings.
Since early 2001, the Department has embarked on a truly ambitious
new building program. Since then, new embassy facilities have been
constructed in Kampala, Doha, Dar Es Salaam, Tunis, and Abu Dhabi.
Three new embassies will be finished in 2003, including Zagreb,
Nairobi, and Istanbul. The 88 percent figure relates to 142 of the 163
``Inman'' era embassies that were not up to standard, leaving 21 (12
percent) that were up to standard. Adding these 8 new embassies, the
percentage rises to nearly 18 percent. With 2004 plans for another 8
embassies, this figure will continue to improve.
As to the question of soft targets, I believe funding can and is
being provided to improve the security at overseas schools and for our
housing. However, the school program is just commencing, and it is
unclear how much funding will be appropriate. The Department will also
continue to provide timely and appropriate security advice and guidance
to businesses and religious groups overseas to enhance their ability to
protect themselves.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., Thursday, March 6, 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 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146A, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hollings, and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE
Senator Gregg. Let me formally welcome you, Mr. Secretary.
We appreciate your coming by to tell us what is happening at
the Commerce Department. The floor is yours.
Did you have a statement or anything?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you do not
mind, Mr. Chairman, for the record let me go ahead and read a
brief edition of what I would like to submit to the record in
my written remarks.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hollings, members of the committee, I am
pleased to be here again to present the President's fiscal year
2004 budget request for the Department of Commerce. With your
permission, I would like to briefly highlight some of the key
components of our budget and submit my written testimony for
the record.
A vibrant private sector is essential to American jobs and
security. One hundred years ago, Congress created the
Department of Commerce to promote American industry and
business and economic opportunity for our citizens. This is the
nexus of our diverse programs in trade, technology,
entrepreneurship, and environmental stewardship.
In developing the budget request, I have carefully followed
the President's directive to focus on four priorities. As you
know, making a budget entails difficult decisions and resources
are limited. Choices have to be made. Clearly, these troubled
times of war and attacks on our way of life demand responsible,
targeted spending. The President's total budget request for the
Department of Commerce is $5.4 billion. This budget provides
for the continued funding of key Commerce programs, while
focusing resources on four critical priorities: fostering
economic growth, contributing to homeland security, advancing
science and technology, and upgrading facilities.
To generate jobs and economic growth, government and
business decisionmakers need the best possible economic
information. An additional $5.4 million is requested for the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. These funds are required to
improve the quality and timeliness of GDP and economic accounts
data. As you know, two-thirds of the revisions in the last
three GDP annual releases were due to lack of information.
For the Census Bureau, which monitors the Nation's social
and economic development, we are asking $9.3 million in
increased spending. The money is for improved data collection
and methods for measurement of the important services sector
and continued planning for the 2010 census.
The President and I are very concerned about the economic
security of America's workers. A proposed increase of $13.8
million for economic development administration will assist
communities severely impacted by plant closures and layoffs.
To meet homeland security needs, the President is
requesting an additional $2.3 million for the Bureau of
Industry and Security. The funds will be used to strengthen
export controls on the dual use of goods and technologies that
would strengthen the military capabilities of our adversaries.
The NOAA budget request includes $5.5 million to expand
NOAA weather radio to a truly national all-hazards warning
network. The funding will allow first responders and emergency
managers direct access to the network to transmit all hazard
messages, and to further strengthen homeland security, we are
requesting $10.3 million for NIST. As you know, NIST is
investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
Using lessons learned, we want to help develop new standards
for cost-effective safety and security of buildings.
Additionally, the funds will be used to test performance
standards for biometric systems used to identify visitors to
our country and to test radiation standards.
To support technology innovation and provide for
intellectual property protection, the Department is working to
eliminate the practice of using USPTO revenues for unrelated
Federal programs. Making more fees available sooner will enable
the agency to increase the quality of patents and trademarks
issued. Because America's leadership in science and technology
has a direct impact on our economic and homeland security, we
also are requesting $9.2 million for NIST research in such
emerging areas as nanotechnology, quantum computing, and health
care quality assurance.
We also include a $16.9 million increase for NOAA to study
areas of scientific uncertainty in climate change, and an
additional $29.8 million increase to modernize fishery
management to better protect this $50 billion industry.
Mr. Chairman, the scientists, engineers, and support staff
in our Commerce laboratories are world-class. Unfortunately, in
some cases, the facilities they occupy are not. For example,
the NIST facilities in Boulder, Colorado were built in the
1950s under the Eisenhower administration. I have seen them.
They lack adequate temperature controls. They suffer power
outages and spikes. All of this adversely affects our vital
research. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding
to renovate the NIST Boulder facilities and to bolster safety
and security in NOAA's facilities and throughout the
Department.
One last comment. As I said earlier, these are troubled,
threatening times for our Nation, and we have had to make some
tough choices affecting some very good programs. To enable us
to focus on new economic and homeland security needs, this
budget phases out funding for the Advanced Technology Program
and the Technology Opportunities Program. It includes funding
only for those manufacturing extension partnership centers in
operation for less than 7 years, as the original law specifies,
and it suspends funding for the public telecommunications
facilities planning and construction.
I know that there will not be universal agreement about
these choices. There are members of this committee and other
Members of Congress who will have different views on priorities
and on funding. Let me say here, I sincerely respect those
views and those judgments, and I look forward to working with
you and working through the budget process with you on the many
issues affecting this Department.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support of the committee
and the support of the committee members that provided for the
Commerce programs and initiatives in the past. This budget is
focused on helping our Nation meet the challenges it faces in
these difficult times.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I welcome your comments, and will be pleased to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[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 2004 budget request. Our focus is
on funding the core mission of the Department and its bureaus. As you
know, the Administration faces great challenges in its commitment to
fight and win the war on terrorism, while at the same time harnessing
the resources of the Federal government to protect the lives and safety
of all Americans. I hope to fully utilize the resources of the
Department of Commerce not only to provide for the physical security of
the Nation, but also to work with other agencies and the private sector
to promote economic security.
The Commerce Department's budget request of $5.4 billion supports
the President's budget plan to focus resources to strengthen our core
Commerce activities. In particular, our request supports the
Administration's economic revitalization and homeland security
priorities and continues our commitment to fund important work of the
Department to provide infrastructure for technological innovation and
to observe and manage the Nation's oceanic and atmospheric environment.
To complement the digital convergence in the private sector, we will be
proposing legislation to modernize the technology and telecommunication
entities of the Department.
The Commerce Department undertakes a wide range of activities
designed to stimulate growth of the nation's economy. Commerce gathers
and develops economic and demographic data for business and government
decision-making; helps American firms and consumers benefit from open
and fair international trade; issues patents and trademarks that
support innovation; helps set industrial standards and performs
cutting-edge scientific research; forecasts the weather to improve
public safety; and promotes sustainable stewardship of the oceans,
including ocean fisheries.
This diversity of activities is reflected in Commerce's five
strategic goals:
--Foster the Nation's economic growth.
--Secure our homeland and enhance public safety.
--Upgrade the Department's facilities, infrastructure, and safety.
--Improve and streamline the Nation's fishery management system to
better meet commercial, recreational, and conservation
objectives.
--Implement the Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative
to reduce present uncertainties in climate science, and support
policy and management decisions to benefit public safety and
quality of life.
To enhance these activities, resources will be shifted from various
lower priority programs.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Economic growth is a central theme for the President and for the
Department of Commerce's bureaus for fiscal year 2004. The Economics
Statistics Administration's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) supplies
the nation's key economic statistics, including gross domestic product
(GDP), which are crucial ingredients for business and government
decision making. BEA seeks to strengthen the understanding of the
United States economy and its competitive position by providing
accurate economic accounts data in a timely and cost-effective manner.
BEA's request includes a $5.4 million increase to accelerate the
release of major economic estimates, to incorporate new international
economic data classifications, and to acquire real-time data to improve
the quality and timeliness of economic statistics.
In conjunction with BEA's request, the Census Bureau's budget
request includes an increase of $39.1 million in current economic and
demographic statistics to fill gaps in data collection, to improve
methodologies for collecting that information, and to improve the
measurement of the Nation's service sector. The Census Bureau's budget
for fiscal year 2004 also includes funding to process and to review
data from the Economic Census, and to continue planning and designing
the 2010 Decennial Census.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) is responsible for
assisting the growth of export businesses, enforcing U.S. trade laws
and agreements, and improving access to overseas markets by identifying
and pressing for the removal of trade barriers. ITA's budget for fiscal
year 2004 focuses on promoting U.S. exports and enhancing the
competitiveness of U.S. businesses in the global economy, by fighting
unfair foreign trade barriers and by negotiating and implementing
multilateral and bilateral trade agreements.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) helps communities
across the nation create economic opportunity by promoting a favorable
business environment to attract private capital investments and higher-
skill, higher-wage jobs. EDA accomplishes this principally through
infrastructure investments and capacity building. A program increase of
$13.8 million is requested for EDA to assist communities that
demonstrate a high level of economic distress.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) will continue to
focus on accelerating the competitiveness and growth of minority-owned
businesses by closing the gap in economic opportunities and capital
access. MBDA is transitioning from an administrative agency to an
entrepreneurial organization, and is driven by entrepreneurship and
innovation. MBDA will continue to provide minority business development
services, through its Minority Business Information Portal and local
Business Development Centers.
For more than one hundred years, the Nation has relied upon the
Technology Administration's National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST) for scientific and technical expertise to promote
economic growth, commerce and trade, and national security. The quality
of NIST work is exemplified by the awards in 1997 and 2001 of the Nobel
Prize, the world's ultimate recognition in science, to two NIST
scientists--Bill Phillips in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Eric Cornell
in Boulder, Colorado. The work they are leading in super-cold matter
and the strange nature of quantum mechanics is driving whole new areas
of science and technology, from atomic clocks that do not gain or lose
more than a billionth of a second in thirty years, to the potential for
unimaginably powerful computers based on individual atoms, to new forms
of telecommunications that provide the ultimate in information
security.
The President's request includes a total of $340.8 million for the
NIST Laboratories to strengthen the national measurements and standards
infrastructure that enables innovation and economic growth. The request
will enable NIST to expand its work in the areas of nanotechnology,
advanced information technology, and health care diagnostics--all areas
with broad economic impact.
NIST will expand its program in nanotechnology, the so-called
``tiny revolution'' in technology, (total request of $62 million).
Nearly all industrial sectors plan to exploit this emerging technology,
and most of these plans call for appropriately scaled measurements and
standards, which is NIST's specialty. NIST closely coordinates its
nanotechnology work with other Federal agencies through the President's
National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI. NIST appropriately has the
lead in providing the measurements and standards infrastructure for the
NNI.
The request also includes $7.3 million to build on NIST's world-
class expertise in quantum computing and communications. This effort,
with teams led by NIST's two Nobel laureates, is developing
revolutionary means of making calculations much more quickly than
traditional electronic computers will ever be able to do. NIST
scientists already have made the working elements of quantum computers
based on individual atoms.
The fiscal year 2004 Budget also requests funding to allow NIST to
strengthen its programs supporting health care diagnostics, which not
only improve the quality of health care, but also ensure that U.S.
manufacturers can compete fairly in the $20 billion global market for
these products. The request includes a total of $17.1 million to
strengthen this effort. Consistent with the President's emphasis on
shifting resources to reflect changing national needs, the President's
fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes terminating the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP) and requests a total of $27 million for administrative
and close-out costs. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget also
proposes maintaining the fiscal year 2003 policy of significantly
reducing Federal funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP), for which the budget requests $12.6 million. These programs have
been well-run, but the scarce resources are needed for higher priority
programs. The budget request focuses on NIST's core mission of
measurements, standards, and laboratory research, rather than its
extramural programs, by providing the 21st century facilities the NIST
Laboratories need for success. Investment of limited NIST resources in
the Laboratory programs and facilities will have the greatest impact on
fostering innovation that leads to economic growth.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) request will support the
second year of the agency's strategic plan to enhance the quality of
products and services and to keep pace with workload growth by
promoting e-government activities and reducing pendency. We understand
that intellectual property protection is paramount to the Nation's
ability to innovate and move products into the marketplace.
Concurrently, Commerce has recently proposed legislation to restructure
PTO fees to better align the fee system with the work undertaken by
PTO. The Department is also working to eliminate the practice of using
USPTO revenues for unrelated Federal programs so that a greater share
of the applicants' fees are available to the agency in the year they
are collected.
HOMELAND SECURITY
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) seeks to advance U.S.
national security and foreign policy interests by regulating exports of
critical goods and technologies that could be used to damage those
interests, while furthering the growth of legitimate U.S. exporters to
maintain our economic leadership. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes
a $5.6 million increase for BIS to address vulnerabilities in
regulating exports of critical goods and technologies. This budget
increase will enable BIS to strengthen export enforcement with
additional agents and capabilities and to enhance the bureau's analysis
of U.S. export control regulations to ensure they reflect the dynamics
of 21st century market and technological changes.
We request an increase of $13.3 million (for a total of $38.7
million) for NIST to address key national needs for homeland security
measurements, standards, and technologies. This request will strengthen
NIST's portfolio of more than 100 projects that address homeland
security technology needs.
Included in this request is an increase of $7 million (for a total
of $10.9 million) as part of a program to use lessons learned from the
NIST-led investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse to make
buildings, occupants, and emergency responders safer from terrorist
attacks on buildings and other building disasters. NIST has the unique
combination of technical expertise in a broad range of building and
fire sciences and lengthy experience working with the building and
emergency responder communities to provide the Nation with the maximum
benefit from the WTC investigation and associated research.
The NIST homeland security request also includes an increase of
$5.3 million (for a total of $26.8 million) to develop the measurement
infrastructure needed to detect nuclear and radiological (``dirty
bomb'') threats, to improve the use of radiation such as x-rays and
other imaging techniques to detect concealed terrorist threats, and to
use radiation safely and effectively to destroy biowarfare agents such
as anthrax.
Our homeland security request also includes a total of $1 million
to develop standards and test methods for biometric identification
systems, used to positively identify the approximately 20 million non-
citizens who enter the United States each year or apply for visas. This
will enable NIST to carry out the mandate of the USA PATRIOT Act, which
requires NIST to develop technology standards for biometric
identification, recognizing NIST's long history of expertise in this
area.
Ensuring public safety remains a priority of NOAA and its National
Weather Service (NWS). The budget request for NOAA includes an increase
of $7.7 million (for a total of $65.1 million) to enhance homeland
security. This increase includes new funding in the amount of $5.5
million to support a scaled upgrade of the current NOAA Weather Radio
(NWR) operation to an All Hazards Warning Network. This upgrade
includes systems to standardize and automate receipt and dissemination
of non-weather emergency messages. The Administration is also
requesting $2.2 million in new funding for emergency preparedness and
safety to improve physical security at 149 NWS facilities to prevent
unauthorized individuals from entering and/or tampering with NWS
property.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request also includes an increase of
$3.7 million to secure core aspects of ITA's worldwide communications
network, to defend against unauthorized access, and to create recovery
mechanisms should damaging events occur.
FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY
The fiscal year 2004 budget strengthens key Commerce programs that
provide the infrastructure that enables U.S. businesses to maintain
their technological edge in world markets. Important priorities for
fiscal year 2004 are to upgrade NIST's and NOAA's facilities and
laboratories and begin consolidating PTO facilities. The NIST budget
request includes $36.2 million to address inefficiencies and safety
problems at its facilities in Boulder, Colorado and Gaithersburg,
Maryland. Valuable research continues to be lost or interrupted by
power outages, spikes, and fluctuations. This budget increase will
enable NIST to protect critical research data from degradation, and to
maintain employee safety and security. The budget also requests $8.2
million to equip, maintain, and operate NIST's Advanced Measurement
Laboratory, and to fund time scale and time dissemination backup
elements.
The budget includes a $47.7 million program increase for NOAA to
address safety and security concerns associated with its buildings,
aircraft, and ships, to upgrade weather forecast offices in the
continental United States, Alaska and the Pacific Islands, to modernize
the primary NWS telecommunications gateway, to continue construction of
the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility in Suitland, Maryland, and to
plan the replacement of the World Weather Building to be co-located
with a major research institution. During fiscal year 2004, NOAA will
also continue the tri-agency acquisition (with DOD and NASA) of the
next-generation polar-orbiting satellites, and systems design and
development for the next-generation geostationary satellite series
(GOES R).
In fiscal year 2004, the PTO will begin relocating its facilities
from 18 buildings in Arlington, VA into a consolidated 5-building
campus in Alexandria, VA with an initial move into two of the buildings
this December. The new consolidated facility is designed to meet the
PTO's operational needs, provide flexibility to future program or
process changes, and fully comply with current fire, life-safety and
accessibility guidelines. The budget includes a $44.6 million program
increase for construction inflation costs that occurred during the
project delay generated by litigation and maintaining dual rent and
simultaneous operations during the eighteen-month move period.
To strengthen the spectrum management capabilities of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to meet the
increasing demand for Federal wireless communication systems and
services, the Department of Commerce requests an increase of $1 million
for NTIA to establish a paperless system for spectrum issue resolution,
certification, satellite coordination and frequency authorization, and
to intensify research aimed at expanding spectrum utilization through
greater understanding of radio frequency interference. The fiscal year
2004 budget also proposes to suspend the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Planning and Construction (PTFPC) grants, a program
reduction of $41.1 million for NTIA during fiscal year 2004. Up to $80
million in funding for digital conversion grants for public television
stations can be made available from within the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) $380 million appropriation, which has already been
enacted. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget also proposes to
terminate the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) as funding within
the Department of Commerce has been redirected to higher priority
programs.
GSA, in coordination with DOC, is planning a major renovation of
the 70-year old Herbert C. Hoover Building. This initiative will
restore the great building to its original condition, bring it up to
current code requirements, address the realities of post 9/11 security
needs and extend the useful life of this historic building. It is
essential to the optimal stewardship of the taxpayers money that we
establish a Renovations Office in fiscal year 2004. In addition, the
Department will focus on safety issues by instituting a new
Occupational Safety and Health Program targeted toward preventing
accidents and injuries through incident tracking and proactive
prevention.
FISHERIES
NOAA's budget request for fiscal year 2004 contains a $29.8 million
program increase to modernize and improve the nation's fishery
management system. Specifically, the requested funding addresses the
need to improve socioeconomic data collection, to reduce bycatch in
targeted fisheries, to increase fishery observer coverage, to
streamline the current fisheries regulatory process, and to implement
the Columbia River Biological Opinion effectively. New funds will also
increase the understanding of the effects of climate change on marine
and coastal ecosystems, and build a national observer program for the
collection of high-quality fisheries and environmental data. The fiscal
year 2004 budget includes a reduction of $40 million for the Pacific
Salmon Treaty for which all U.S. obligations have been met.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Finally, one of the highlights of the Department's fiscal year 2004
Budget is the request of $295.9 million for NOAA's climate change
research, observations and services. This amount includes an increase
of $16.9 million as part of a total request of $41.6 million for NOAA's
contribution to the President's interagency Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI). The NOAA fiscal year 2004 CCRI request supports
NOAA's efforts to: enhance ocean observations for climate; augment
carbon-monitoring capabilities in North America as well as in key
under-sampled oceanic and continental regions around the globe; advance
the understanding of all major types of aerosols; establish a climate
modeling center within NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
which will focus on research, analysis, and policy applications for the
development of model product generation; and coordinate and manage the
Nation's interagency climate and global change programs through the
Climate Change Science Program Office.
The President's CCRI led to the creation of a new interagency
framework in order to enhance coordination of Federal agency resources
and research activities. Under this framework, thirteen Federal
agencies are working together under the leadership of a Cabinet-level
committee on climate change to improve the value of U.S. climate change
research.
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget request for climate change
activities reflects the President's priorities by focusing Federal
research on the elements of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) that can best support improved public discussion and decision-
making. Under the CCRI, various agencies will adhere to specific
performance goals, including providing products to decision-makers
within four years. The priorities of the CCRI are: reducing key
scientific uncertainties; designing and implementing a comprehensive
global climate and ecosystem monitoring and data management system; and
providing resources to support public evaluation of a wide range of
climate change scenarios and response options. Even in this time of
difficult budget decisions, the President is committed to fully funding
climate research so that we can continue to reduce the uncertainties
associated with climate change.
As I previously stated, this budget request for the Department of
Commerce has been carefully crafted to focus on those core functions
that the American people rely on from this agency. We will focus on
promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, exports, and safety, while
spreading opportunity to all Americans and ensuring responsible
stewardship of our natural resources.
CIAO MOVED TO HOMELAND SECURITY
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. CIAO has been
moved over to Homeland Security, at least in theory. I am
wondering to what extent that has actually occurred, how it is
physically being done, and whether the transfers are affecting
the operations past the infrastructure protection efforts.
Secretary Evans. It has been done. As far as I know the
transfer was made smoothly. We continue within NIST to work
with areas of CIAO in terms of protecting cybersecurity in this
country, but the CIAO group has been moved over.
Senator Gregg. Have they physically left?
Secretary Evans. Yes, gone. At least, I am not seeing them
around there any more. On March 1, 2003, pursuant to Public Law
107-296 Homeland Security Act of 2002, the CIAO was transferred
from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Homeland
Security. There are plans for the CIAO/DHS to move out of the
Herbert C. Hoover Building, but the move has not yet taken
place.
ENTRY/EXIT SYSTEM BASED ON BIOMETRICS
Senator Gregg. NIST is doing biometric identification work.
To what extent is that being coordinated with the INS efforts
to produce an exit/entry system which is based on biometrics,
do you know?
Secretary Evans. I am certain that there is close
coordination, because that is the purpose of it, is to be used
in identifying people coming into this country with biometric
techniques, and so I know there is close coordination. I am not
sure of the specific meetings.
Senator Gregg. I would be interested in getting, or having
your staff get for us an explanation of to what extent you are
working with INS and to what extent NIST has evaluated the INS
efforts in exit/entry, and whether or not they are on the right
track.
Secretary Evans. Sure.
Senator Gregg. This committee has had very serious
reservations about INS' capacity to do exit/entry system based
on biometrics. NIST is an extremely talented agency, filled
with talented people, a very strong agency. I would be very
interested in their evaluation of the INS efforts in this area.
Secretary Evans. You bet.
[The information follows:]
NIST's Work With INS on the Entry/Exit System
Under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Enhanced Border
Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, NIST (with the
Attorney General and Secretary of State) is required to
``develop and certify a technology standard, including
appropriate biometric identifier standards, that can be used to
verify the identity of persons applying for a United States
visa or such persons seeking to enter the United States
pursuant to a visa for the purposes of conducting background
checks, confirming identity, and ensuring that a person has not
received a visa under a different name . . .'' NIST has an on-
going mandate to provide technical guidance on appropriate
biometric identifiers based on technology evaluations and to
write reports with the Departments of Justice, State, Defense,
and Homeland Security/INS on recommendations for entry-exit
systems. The first report, entitled ``Use of Technology
Standards and Interoperable Databases With Machine-Readable,
Tamper-Resistant Travel Documents,'' was submitted to Congress
on February 4, 2003. The NIST appendix to that report is
available at http://222.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/
NISTAPPXNov02.pdf. The second report on biometric standards has
been completed and is currently circulating for comments within
the agencies. NIST is evaluating face recognition and
fingerprint matching systems for the INS and is planning an
evaluation of the INS' Automated Biometric INDENTification
System (IDENT) later in fiscal year 2003.
NIST PROGRESS INVESTIGATING WTC ATTACKS
Senator Gregg. NIST is also investigating the WTC attack
and the destruction of the buildings. Do you have any
conclusions yet that we can share?
Secretary Evans. No--well, I think there are some, Mr.
Chairman. I know that we have been sharing with some of the
designers in New York some of the preliminary findings. I think
there is a preliminary report, I believe that will be out this
summer, but the full study is scheduled to take 2 years, which
means we will not be finished for I think another year or so,
but I know that those who are doing the designs under the new
construction in New York have been talking to NIST, and they
have been communicating, but still the findings, of course, are
preliminary.
Senator Gregg. Do they have the funding they need? There
has been some indication maybe too much stuff has been sent to
the scrap heap and NIST could not get their hands on the
necessary material.
Secretary Evans. Right, Mr. Chairman. That was an issue
that was brought up about 1 year ago. I went back and inquired
and yes, there was concern about that initially. But after
inquiring, my understanding now is, they feel like they have
the necessary materials to provide the public with a full, and
complete, and thorough report of what occurred, and what kind
of standards we ought to think about implementing for providing
more safety and security of these kinds of structures.
BACKLOG OF PATENT APPLICATIONS
Senator Gregg. The Patent Office has a 400,000 backlog of
patent applications, and that is staggering. What is the game
plan for getting that to some sort of reasonable conclusion?
Secretary Evans. Well, as I mentioned, part of the game
plan is more funding, and recruiting more examiners. Part of
the game plan is modernization of the systems going from a
paper-loaded system to a paperless system, which will take some
time. In general, pendency rates have not moved a lot. They
have come down a little bit, but I think the thrust, I would
say, Mr. Chairman, is to move from a paper system to a
technology computer information kind of system where we make
more use of the modern information systems we have today, as
well as continuing to recruit more examiners.
But I must say to you that a substantial amount of the
funding also is going to go into a new program that we are
implementing which is just the requalification of the examiners
themselves. Right now, the way PTO works is, examiners, once
they are a full-time examiner, you would think of it as tenure.
They are always a full-time examiner, and we felt like it was
important to have a system in place where periodically they go
through a requalification process.
One other area, Mr. Chairman, I think--I mean, we are
putting a lot of energy and a lot of effort into this, because
it is so critical not only to protecting patents here in the
United States--not protecting them, but approving them in a
timely kind of way, but also making sure that those patents are
recognized and honored around the world, and we are moving very
aggressively toward a global patent system.
We are working aggressively with USPTO, Europe and with
Japan--85 percent of the patents in the world are in those
three areas, and so we are working toward a system that would
eventually result in the mutual exploitation of search results
in terms of integrating the information we have and sharing it
with the European Patent Office (EPO) and with Japan, and other
intellectual property offices and also them sharing their
information with us. We feel like that would not only make the
patent system more efficient but reduce a lot of duplication
that is out there in the world today.
So just rest assured that I think we have got a very good
team working on this. It is certainly a big focus of ours. We
understand, just industry after industry in our country, how
important intellectual property is, and protecting intellectual
property.
Senator Gregg. Well, I do not know about other Members of
the Senate, but I have heard from a number of folks in New
Hampshire that their frustration with the Patent Office is
fairly significant right now. Some of them have just given up
on going that route, so I would be interested if there is a
plan, a formalized plan for how you are going to reduce the
backlog and how you are going to make it more electronically
controlled, and how you are going to develop this international
system. I would like to see such a plan, if it is a formal
plan.
Secretary Evans. We will be glad to provide that to you,
you bet.
[The information follows:]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in response to
stakeholder input, updated its June 2002 21st Century Strategic Plan on
February 3, 2003, and submitted it to the Congress in support of the
fiscal year 2004 President's budget.
The USPTO prepared its 21st Century Strategic Plan in response to
Congressional direction. For example, the Senate CJS Subcommittee
report language dated July 19, 2001 directed the Secretary of Commerce
to develop a five-year plan with three core objectives: Prepare the
agency to handle the workload associated with the 21st century economy;
improve patent quality; and reduce patent and trademark pendency.
The Committee further said that the plan should include:
Recommendations to improve retention and productivity of examiner
workforce; targeted hiring increases to deal with high-growth areas;
improved training; E-Government and other capital improvements designed
to improve productivity; and benchmarks for measuring progress in
achieving each of these objectives.
The Committee also directed that the ``electronic file wrapper'' be
fully implemented by the end of fiscal year 2004.
The attached plan identifies the specific actions the USPTO is
taking to
--Deliver an operational system to process patent applications
electronically by October 1, 2004.
--Reduce duplication of effort and decrease workload by relying on
search results obtained via partnerships with other
intellectual property offices (see Work Sharing 1).
--Achieve an interim patent pendency goal of 27 months by fiscal year
2008. The USPTO will continue to work toward reducing pendency
and pursue the long-term optimum goal of 18 months pendency
beyond the five-year horizon of the strategic plan.
--Reduce total patent examiner hires through fiscal year 2008
compared to the fiscal year 2003 budget and business plan
projection.
Each of these actions is supported by a detailed analysis of the
issue and an implementation plan. These are posted on the USPTO web
site and can be made available to the Senator's staff.
The 21st Century Strategic Plan
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
under siege. Patent application filings have increased dramatically
throughout the world. There are an estimated seven million pending
applications in the world's examination pipeline, and the annual
workload growth rate in the previous decade was in the range of 20-30
percent. Technology has become increasingly complex, and demands from
customers for higher quality products and services have escalated. Our
applicants are concerned that the USPTO does not have access to all of
the fees they pay to have their patent and trademark applications
examined, thereby jeopardizing the benefits intellectual property
rights bring to our national economy. In the United States, these
demands have created a workload crisis. The Congress, the owners of
intellectual property, the patent bar, and the public-at-large have all
told us that we must address these challenges aggressively and
promptly.
We agree. We believe that the USPTO must transform itself into a
quality-focused, highly productive, responsive organization supporting
a market-driven intellectual property system. And we also believe that
we have the tools, the skills, the will and the plan to do so.
--The tools.--The technology exists to create a high-quality, cost-
effective, responsive, paperless patent examination process,
building on our current success in automating trademarks.
--The skills.--We have a cadre of talented staff with the technical
expertise and the vision to help guide and support the
technical and, even more important, the cultural transformation
of the USPTO.
--The will.--Organizational transformations require sustained
commitment and constancy of purpose ``from the top.'' The USPTO
leadership is dedicated to this task.
--The plan.--This strategic plan lays out our approach to creating,
over the next five years, an agile, capable and productive
organization fully worthy of the unique leadership role the
American intellectual property system plays in both the
American and the global economies.
This new 21st Century Strategic Plan is aggressive and far-
reaching. However, anything less would fall short of the expectations
of the U.S. Congress, the applicants for, and owners of, patents and
trademarks, the patent and trademark bar, and the public-at-large.
Additionally, the failure to adopt this strategic plan would have
negative consequences. We would be unable to implement our quality and
e-Government initiatives, pendency would rise to uncontrollable levels,
and our costs would continue to grow.
After the implementation of this strategic plan:
--Market forces will drive our business model.
--Geography and time will be irrelevant when doing business with the
USPTO.
--We will strengthen our ability to be ranked as one of the highest
quality, most-efficient intellectual property organizations in
the world.
--Our products and services will be tailored to meet the needs of
customers.
--Examination will be our core expertise.
--Our employees will be recognized as expert decision makers.
--Independent inventors, U.S. industry and the public will benefit
from stronger, more enforceable intellectual property rights
worldwide.
--Our workplace will become a state-of-the-art facility designed for
the 21st Century.
--Following implementation of this plan and its underlying
assumptions, including the enactment of legislation to
restructure fees, statutory fees will remain steady for the
foreseeable future.
ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY STRATEGIC PLAN
This five-year strategic plan reflects both a thorough internal
process review and a systematic attempt to incorporate the best
thinking of our applicants, our counterparts in Europe, Japan and other
countries, and our stakeholders, including our Public Advisory
Committees. Key stakeholders also include our dedicated employees,
without whose commitment the strategic plan could not have been
developed and its success could not be assured.
The strategic plan takes a global perspective by envisioning the
patent and trademark systems of the future that American innovators
would need to remain competitive around the world. It is built on the
premise that American innovators want to obtain enforceable
intellectual property rights here and abroad as seamlessly and cost-
effectively as possible. It emphasizes the opportunity for the USPTO to
collaborate with intellectual property organizations in automation,
global patent classification, and exploitation of search results.
Finally, the plan is predicated on changes to the way all players in
the intellectual property system do business with the USPTO and the way
USPTO employees respond.
The strategic plan is supported with detailed documentation
analyzing all of the related issues, a five-year implementation plan
with identified critical tasks, proposed revisions to the fiscal year
2003 budget request to enable timely implementation of the strategic
plan, and corresponding proposed legislation and regulations necessary
for a successful multi-year implementation.
This strategic plan cannot succeed without enactment of the
legislation changing the USPTO's current fee schedule and access to
revenue generated in fiscal year 2003, to the extent provided in the
President's fiscal year 2003 Budget, revisions to current rules, and
legislation for streamlining the patent and trademark systems to
facilitate these changes. There are a number of variables, such as
potential changes in restriction practice and the use of commercial
search services that could affect our projected costs and revenues.
Once they have been clarified, any ensuing revisions to our program
costs and fee schedule will be resolved in the context of the USPTO's
annual budget submission to the Congress.
Proof of Concept
To ensure the USPTO proposes appropriate changes to patent and
trademark laws, makes changes to internal processes that provide
benefits and increased efficiency, and makes sound investment
decisions, the initiatives proposed in this plan will be subjected to
thorough evaluation. Pilot projects will be initiated and tested
wherever necessary. Evaluation plans will incorporate, where
appropriate, measurable objectives, critical measures of success,
baseline data, and conditions for full implementation.
Performance Measures
This plan contains measurable objectives and milestones for each of
the general goals. The annual budget submission to the Congress will
provide additional criteria by establishing key measurements and yearly
milestones that will be used to determine the USPTO's success in
achieving these goals. The annual integrated budget/performance plan is
the most efficient and effective way of establishing accountability by
making sure that performance measures and milestones are consistent
with the views of the Administration and the Congress in the enacted
annual budget.
STRATEGIC AGENDA
Vision
The USPTO will lead the way in creating a quality-focused, highly
productive, responsive organization supporting a market-driven
intellectual property system for the 21st Century.
We believe that quality must permeate every action taken by every
employee of the USPTO. The new initiatives in our strategic plan are
targeted toward creating a cultural transformation whereby quality is
the principal focus of everything we do.
Mission
The USPTO mission is to ensure that the intellectual property
system contributes to a strong global economy, encourages investment in
innovation, and fosters entrepreneurial spirit.
In order to accomplish our mission, we have prepared this strategic
plan. Provided we receive the funding and statutory changes necessary
to implement this new strategy, we will:
--Enhance the quality of patent and trademark examining operations
through consolidation of quality assurance activities in fiscal
year 2003.
--Achieve 27 months overall patent pendency goal \1\ in fiscal year
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pendency is a measurement of USPTO's traditional examination
processing time; i.e., from filing (under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)) to ultimate
disposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Reduce total patent examiner hires through fiscal year 2008 by
2,400 compared to the 2003 Business Plan.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 2003 Business Plan was submitted to the Congress in
February 2002 as part of the USPTO's fiscal year 2003 Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Accelerate processing time by implementing e-Government in
Trademarks by November 2, 2003, and in Patents by October 1,
2004.
--Competitively source classification and search functions, and
concentrate Office expertise as much as possible on the core
government functions.
--Expand our bilateral and multilateral discussions to strengthen
intellectual property rights globally and to reduce duplication
of effort among offices.
Strategic Themes
To achieve our vision and accomplish our mission, we must transform
our organization and become a more agile, more capable and more
productive USPTO. The Congress has directed us to (1) improve patent
and trademark quality, (2) aggressively implement e-Government to
handle the workload associated with the 21st Century economy, and (3)
reduce patent and trademark pendency. We have identified three
strategic themes that correspond directly to these Congressional
requirements:
--1. Agility: Address the 21st Century Economy by Becoming a More
Agile Organization.--We will create a flexible organization and
work processes that can handle the increasing expectations of
our markets, the growing complexity and volume of our work, and
the globalization that characterize the 21st Century economy.
We will work, both bilaterally and multilaterally, with our
partners to create a stronger, better-coordinated and more
streamlined framework for protecting intellectual property
around the world. We will transform the USPTO workplace by
radically reducing labor-intensive paper processing.
--2. Capability: Enhance Quality through Workforce and Process
Improvements.--We will make patent and trademark quality our
highest priority by emphasizing quality in every component of
this strategic plan. Through the timely issuance of high-
quality patents and trademarks, we will respond to market
forces by promoting advances in technology, expanding business
opportunities and creating jobs.
--3. Productivity: Accelerate Processing Times Through Focused
Examination.--We will control patent and trademark pendency,
reduce time to first Office action, and recover our investments
in people, processes and technology.
We will transform the USPTO by adhering to these themes in each of
the improvement initiatives upon which this strategic plan is based, as
well as in all of our other programs. These initiatives are discussed
in more detail under each of the major theme sections.
Agility: Address the 21st Century Economy by Becoming a More Agile
Organization
An agile organization responds quickly and efficiently to changes
in the economy, the marketplace, and the nature and size of workloads.
In pursuit of an agile organization, the USPTO will focus both
internally and externally.
As a first priority, we have made electronic end-to-end processing
of both patents and trademarks the centerpiece of our business model.
We will create a nimble, flexible enterprise that responds rapidly
to changing market conditions. We will make the USPTO a premier place
to work; we will rely on a smaller cadre of highly trained and skilled
employees; and we will place greater reliance on the private sector,
including drawing on the strengths of the information industry. We will
enhance the quality of work life for our employees by exploring
expansion of work-at-home opportunities and moving to the new Carlyle
campus facility in Alexandria, Virginia.
Further, we will enhance existing and establish new alliances with
our friends in other national and international intellectual property
organizations to strengthen American intellectual property rights
around the world.
Specific actions, with parenthetical cross-references to the
analyses and implementation plans in the Appendices, include:
Implement automation for patent and trademark applications
Develop a trademark electronic file management system and begin e-
Government operations on November 2, 2003, in tandem with
implementation of the Madrid Protocol. [E-Government 1]
Deliver an operational system to process patent applications
electronically by October 1, 2004, including electronic image capture
of all incoming and outgoing paper documents. [E-Government 2]
Develop an automated information system to support a post-grant
patent review process. [E-Government 3]
Establish an information technology security program for fully
certifying and accrediting the security of automated information
systems. [E-Government 4]
Provide back-up systems to ensure maximum availability of computer
systems to examiners, attorneys, the public and other patent and
trademark offices by establishing appropriate back-up systems. [E-
Government 5]
Expand work-at-home opportunities
Increase the efficiency and return on investment of our work-at-
home program and thereby encourage more employees to participate.
[Work-at-Home 1]
Increase flexibility through greater reliance on the
private sector or other intellectual property
offices
Increase reliance on the private sector or other intellectual
property offices for:
Classifying patent documents. [Flexibility 1]
Supporting national application and Patent Cooperation Treaty
search activities. [Flexibility 2]
Transitioning to a new global patent classification system.
[Flexibility 3]
Classifying trademark goods/services and searching design codes.
[Flexibility 4]
Global Development: Streamline intellectual property
systems and strengthen intellectual property rights
around the world
Promote harmonization in the framework of the World Intellectual
Property Organization and its Standing Committee on the Law of Patents;
resolve major issues in a broader context and pursue substantive
harmonization goals that will strengthen the rights of American
intellectual property holders by making it easier to obtain
international protection for their inventions and creations. [Global
Development 1]
Negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements to facilitate
global convergence of patent standards. [Global Development 2]
Accelerate Patent Cooperation Treaty reform efforts, focusing on
the USPTO's proposal for simplified processing. [Global Development 3]
Develop a ``universal'' trademark electronic application by
leveraging the United States' experience with electronic filing of
trademark applications. [Global Development 4]
Share search results with other intellectual property
offices
Reduce duplication of effort and decrease workload by relying on
search results obtained via partnerships with other intellectual
property offices. [Work Sharing 1]
Planned Agility Accomplishments
Accelerate processing time by implementing e-Government in
Trademarks by November 2, 2003, and in Patents by October 1, 2004.
Competitively source classification and search functions, and
concentrate USPTO expertise as much as possible on core government
functions.
Expand our bilateral and multilateral discussions to strengthen
intellectual property rights globally and to reduce duplication of
effort among intellectual property offices.
Capability: Enhance Quality Through Workforce and Process Improvements
A capable organization has a highly skilled, appropriately sized
workforce; it has systems and procedures that enhance the capability of
every employee; and it has in place effective quality management
processes to ensure high quality work and continuous performance
improvement. In other words, a capable organization is committed to
doing the right job right--the first time and every time. We will be
such an organization.
Quality will be assured throughout the process by hiring the people
who make the best patent and trademark examiners, certifying their
knowledge and competencies throughout their careers at the USPTO, and
focusing on quality throughout the examination of patent and trademark
applications. By bolstering confidence in the quality of U.S. patents
and trademarks, the USPTO will enhance the reliability in the quality
of products and services needed to increasingly spur our economy and
reduce litigation costs.
Specific actions, with parenthetical cross-references to the
analyses and implementation plans in the Appendices, include:
Enhance workforce capabilities by certifying competencies
Create an enterprise-wide training strategy that meets the needs of
the new business model and the e-Government generation. [Transformation
1]
Restructure the USPTO by redirecting resources to core examination
activities, implement revised performance plans to incorporate changes
required to implement an e-Government workplace, meet agency-wide
standards for senior executives, and implement selected award packages.
[Transformation 2 and 3]
Transform the workforce by exploring alternative organizational
concepts and structures. [Transformation 4]
Ensure that professionals, support staff and supervisors
responsible for the patent process possess the requisite skills needed
to carry out their responsibilities. [Transformation 5]
Certification of knowledge, skills and ability in the Trademark
Process. [Transformation 6]
Implement pre-employment testing for patent examiners.
[Transformation 7 and 8]
Recertify the knowledge, skills and abilities of primary examiners
to ensure currency in patent law, practice and procedures.
[Transformation 9]
Certify the legal competency and negotiation abilities of patent
examiners before promotion to grade 13. [Transformation 10]
Improve the selection and training of supervisory patent examiners
to focus on their primary responsibilities of training patent examiners
and reviewing and approving their work. [Transformation 11]
Make improvements in patent and trademark quality assurance
techniques
Enhance the current quality assurance programs by integrating
reviews to cover all stages of examination. [Quality 1]
Expand reviews of primary examiner work. [Quality 2]
Engineer quality into our processing including the selective
expansion of the ``second pair of eyes'' review \3\ of work products in
such advanced fields of technology as semiconductors,
telecommunications, and biotechnology. [Quality 3 and 4]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A secondary review of applications for proper claim
interpretation and to ensure that the closest prior art has been
discovered and correctly applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate an evaluation of search quality into the patent work
product review process, and survey practitioners on specific
applications. [Quality 5 and 6]
Enhance the reviewable record of prosecution in patent
applications. [Quality 7]
Certify and monitor the quality of searching authorities to ensure
that patent searches provided by the private sector contractors or
other patent offices are complete and of the highest quality. [Quality
8]
Make process improvements that contribute to enhanced
quality through legislation/rule changes
Propose legislation and/or rule changes that have been identified
as critical for the accomplishment of this strategic plan. Continue the
process of seeking comments from stakeholders on proposed changes.
Planned Capability Accomplishments
Enhance the quality of patent and trademark examining operations
through consolidation of quality assurance activities in fiscal year
2003.
Productivity: Accelerate Processing Times Through Focused Examination
We are committed to promoting advances in technology, expansion of
business opportunities and creation of jobs through the timely issuance
of high quality patents and trademarks. A productive organization
maximizes its output of work performed. Improved productivity is key to
reducing pendency and inventory.
This strategic plan has aggressive timeliness goals: to make
available, on average, a first Office action for first-filed U.S. non-
provisional patent applications, at the time of 18-month publication,
and a patent search report for other patent applications in the same
time frame--by far the fastest in the world. This will be accomplished
through a redesign of the entire patent search and examination systems
based upon multiple-examination tracks, greater reliance on qualified
patent search services, and variable, incentive-driven fees. In
Trademarks, achieve an average 12-month total pendency. This will be
accomplished by a three-track examination system. Likewise, both
Patents and Trademarks will restructure the way they do business to be
compatible with an e-Government environment.
Specific actions, with parenthetical cross-references to the
analyses and implementation plans in the Appendices, include:
Transition to market-driven examination options
Adopt procedures that give greater choice and flexibility to
trademark applicants for filing and examination of applications for the
registration of trademarks, with a focus on using technology to improve
the process and provide a lower cost filing option. [Pendency 1]
Move from a ``one-size-fits-all'' patent examination process to a
multi-track examination process that leverages search results of other
organizations and permits applicants to have freedom of choice in the
processing of their applications. This new process will eliminate
duplication of effort, encourage greater participation by the applicant
community and public, and improve the quality of our patents and
decrease processing time. [Pendency 2]
Address the number of claims presented for examination in an
application and the size of applications through fee-setting
legislation to reflect the cost of processing complex applications.
[Shared Responsibility 1]
Achieve greater examiner productivity by reducing their prior art
search responsibilities. [Pendency 3]
Implement an accelerated examination path option
Offer patent applicants the market-driven new ``rocket docket''
option of choosing an accelerated examination procedure with priority
processing and a pendency time of no longer than 12 months.
[Accelerated Examination 1]
Share responsibility for timely and high quality patents
and trademarks between applicant and the USPTO
Seek enactment of legislation to restructure the USPTO fee schedule
by mid-fiscal year 2003, and thereby create incentives that contribute
to achievement of USPTO goals. For example, the filing fee will be kept
as low as possible to incentivize applicants to file, and the refund
provision expanded to allow the USPTO to refund a portion of the search
fee if the application is expressly abandoned before search or
examination. [Shared Responsibility 1]
Make patents more reliable by proposing amendments to patent laws
to improve a post-grant review of patents. [Shared Responsibility 2]
Planned Productivity Accomplishments
Achieve first Office action patent pendency of 14.7 months in
fiscal year 2008.
Achieve an interim patent pendency goal of 27 months by fiscal year
2008. Note: The USPTO will continue to work toward reducing pendency
and pursue the long-term optimum goal of 18 months pendency beyond the
five-year horizon of this strategic plan. Our best estimate is that it
will take at least a decade to achieve the 18-month goal.
Reduce total patent examiner hires through fiscal year 2008 by
2,400 compared to the 2003 Business Plan projection. [See Figure 1]
Figure 1. Patent Examiner Hiring Comparison
Critical Needs
The performance commitments outlined in this strategic plan demand
extraordinary effort from every USPTO employee, and the full support of
our key stakeholders. Our strategic plan is built around the following
critical needs.
Multilateral and Bilateral Agreements
We need to consult with, and receive support of, other patent
offices in structuring new bilateral and multilateral initiatives.
Legislation/Rules
We will need enactment of legislation by the Congress to adjust
certain patent and trademark fees and access to revenue generated by
mid-fiscal year 2003 to the extent provided in the President's fiscal
year 2003 Budget. We also will need to promulgate final rules to effect
fee changes.
We will need to continue working to develop the proposed
legislation and rule changes that have been identified, and continue
the process of seeking comments from interested parties on ways to
improve our operation.
Labor Relations
We will need to notify the three bargaining units representing
USPTO employees of proposed changes and negotiate, where necessary, any
changes in working conditions.
Budget
We will need enactment of an appropriation for fiscal year 2003
that is consistent with the level of the President's 2003 Budget.
Move to Carlyle in Alexandria, Virginia
We will need to carefully plan the logistics for relocating the
USPTO to a consolidated campus in Alexandria, Virginia, while
minimizing any adverse effects on employees, applicants and the public.
The USPTO is quickly moving into the implementation phase of the
relocation of its facilities from 18 buildings spread throughout
Crystal City to a single lease in a consolidated campus. This
consolidation is expected to save us $72 million over the 20-year term
of the lease, but it is a highly complex and difficult endeavor.
President's Management Agenda
Secretary Donald Evans has committed the Department of Commerce to
speedy implementation of the President's Management Agenda. President
Bush has stated that true government reform must be based on a
reexamination of the role of the Federal Government. In this regard, he
has called for ``active, but limited'' government: a government that
empowers states, cities, and citizens to make decisions; ensures
results through accountability; and promotes innovation through
competition. The reforms that he has identified to help the Federal
Government adapt to a rapidly changing world include a government that
is: Citizen-centered--not bureaucracy-centered; results-oriented--not
process-oriented; and market-based--actively promoting, not stifling,
innovation, and competition.
This strategic plan supports the President's Management Agenda:
Human Capital.--We will provide the tools and the resources to
ensure that we have a highly qualified, certified, knowledge-based,
accountable workforce. Specifically, we will strengthen pre-employment
testing; develop a competency certification program; create a new
labor-management paradigm to meet changing business needs; streamline
our workforce to maximize quality and efficiency; and focus our
training, performance evaluation and assessment environment on our core
expertise--examination.
Competitive Sourcing.--We are committed to achieving performance
enhancements and cost-savings, through the process of competitive
sourcing. This process compares the capabilities and costs of
commercial service providers with current government program providers.
Greater competition drives down costs and yields more innovative
solutions. We will seek improved effectiveness in the following areas:
patent searching, patent documentation classification, and information
technology and logistical support operations.
Improved Financial Management.--The USPTO has a strong, fully
integrated financial management system in place and we will continue to
strengthen our internal controls, improve the timeliness and usefulness
of our management information and continue to achieve an unqualified
financial audit opinion.
E-Government.--We are accelerating deployment of critical automated
information systems, particularly electronic end-to-end processing of
patent and trademark applications. In addition, we are currently
working on ways to improve delivery schedules, reliability,
performance, security and the cost of all our automated information
systems.
Budget/Performance Integration.--We will allocate budget resources
to the programs based on the concept of linking them to the achievement
of both enterprise-wide goals and individual unit performance. The
USPTO will expand the involvement of applicants and the public in
assessing the accomplishment of our goals and performance targets.
As a reflection of our commitment to fund our strategic priorities,
we conducted a comprehensive review of current operations and
redirected substantial fiscal year 2003 resources toward improving
examination quality and implementing e-Government processing.
Long-term Agenda
This strategic plan is only the first step toward creating a
quality-focused, highly productive, responsive USPTO that supports a
market-based intellectual property system for the 21st Century. Once
the initial phases of this plan have been supported, adopted and
implemented, the USPTO will explore further options to enhance its
ability to more fully operate like a business.
Within the framework of the legislative and regulatory packages
there are a number of items that will be implemented in the out-years
of the strategic plan.
Restriction practice.--We will conduct a study of the changes
needed to implement a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) style unity of
invention standard in the United States. The study will be completed
and appropriate legislation will be introduced before the end of the
108th Congress.
Patent term adjustment.--Before seeking legislation to simplify
patent term adjustment, we will explore a number of options to address
this issue with the small business community and other key
stakeholders.
Mutual exploitation of examination results.--In anticipation of
achieving our long-term goal of substantive patent harmonization, we
will take a cautious approach to mutual exploitation of examination
results by first evaluating International Preliminary Examination
Reports during national stage examination. We will subsequently analyze
the potential of whether the acceptance of examination results (granted
patents) from foreign offices is a proper basis for use in counterpart
applications in the United States. However, the USPTO will never
recommend any changes that would compromise our sovereign right to
determine patentability issues or to preclude our right to make further
examinations when necessary.
Copyright issues.--As part of the implementation of the electronic
file wrapper, we will ascertain the best means for assuring that these
documents in an application file that may be subject to copyright
protection can be included in the USPTO's databases. The intent of this
option would be to ensure full public access to all the information
contained in a pending application file.
Third party request for reexamination.--As part of the initiative
to seek post-grant review legislation, we will explore the need for
retention of third-party requested reexamination.
District court actions.--We will evaluate the desirability of a
revision to the provisions for judicial review of USPTO decisions to
make an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit the
sole avenue for judicial review of a Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences or a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision.
Patent Cooperation Treaty Activities.--We will actively pursue
revisions to Patent Cooperation Treaty search and examination
guidelines to achieve an enhanced level of reliance on PCT
International Search Reports and International Preliminary Examination
Reports.
Business-like practices.--We also will explore whether we have a
good justification for operating in a more business-like manner.
USPTO Campus.--Once we have settled into the Carlyle campus and
have fully implemented automated patent and trademark processing, we
will be able to assess the feasibility of expanding our work-at-home
program by using such virtual office concepts as telecommuting and
flexible workplace to the maximum potential.
Examiner Training.--We will evaluate the feasibility of reinstating
the Examiner Education Program through corporate sponsorship to enable
patent examiners to gain better insights into technological
developments in the fields in which they examine.
Some Final Thoughts
This 21st Century Strategic Plan sets forth an ambitious agenda to
resolve the crisis all intellectual property organizations are facing.
We believe economic and technological progress in the United States and
the global market can be significantly enhanced through the
implementation of the initiatives proposed in this plan.
We intend to refine and update our strategic plan periodically to
adjust to changing conditions and to incorporate the best thinking of
the entire intellectual property community. We are eager to work with
those who believe, as we do, that American innovators and businesses
must have the very best intellectual property system in the world. This
21st Century Strategic Plan represents an important first step in the
pursuit of this goal.
FREE TRADE CONCERNS
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we have got a hot war ongoing, and there is
no question in this Senator's mind or anybody in this room that
we will win that one, but we have got a cold war economically
that we are losing, and you are the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in that cold war.
As Secretary of Commerce, you are the most important
member, and with the President, the most influential member,
and we are looking at the results. The war did not start when
you folks came to town. This war has been going on since World
War II, and we had the Marshall Plan. It worked. We sent over
the expertise, we sent over the technology and everything else
into Europe and to the Pacific Rim and they revived them.
But now you look and you find out you have got over $420-
some billion in the deficit in the balance of trade last year,
and now it is inching up to over $500 billion this year, and I
am looking at different items--well, I've already lost, don't
worry about my questions being about textiles. They are
Republican and they have gone anyway, so it is a sort of twofer
for me.
Senator Gregg. They left New Hampshire a long time ago to
go to South Carolina.
Senator Hollings. Over two-thirds of the clothing I am
looking at is imported, over 86 percent of the shoes on the
floor are imported, but then I look at the list that you made
of critical items to our national security, and you list about
some 500, and we have a $5 billion deficit in the balance of
trade in those critical items.
We have got a deficit in the balance of trade in
semiconductors. I know I have got a deficit in the balance of
trade in cotton. I am riding through the cotton fields
politicking down home, but I am importing Chinese cotton
because we do not produce enough in this country, and then I
looked and found that we made finally a deficit in the balance
of trade in farm products for the second time in the history of
the country.
Free trade is fine in the textbooks, and fine for England
when she was in control of the world's empire. In other words,
when old Alexander Hamilton got the note that what we ought to
do, having won our little freedom as a colony, we ought to
trade back what we produced best, and they in Britain would
trade back what they produced best, the doctrine of comparative
advantage, David Ricardo, old Hamilton said bug off--we are not
going to remain your colony, just shipping our timber and our
coal and our iron ore and farm products. We are going to build
up our own manufacturing.
So he introduced, and by gosh, old Madison supported him in
the second bill. The first bill was for the U.S. Seal as a
Nation. The second bill that passed the Congress was the 50-
percent tariff bill, protectionism, on about 60 articles, and
we started rebuilding, and in fact we financed the country with
protectionism until 1913, when we finally got the income tax.
Other countries are doing the same thing, after World War
II, the Japanese, the Koreans and everybody coming right on
down the road, and they do not practice free trade, they
practice protectionism.
One of the big reasons behind my Advanced Technology
Program was to try to compete with the subsidization, the
financing of the industry, the banking, and not only that, but
also protecting in every respect the retail markets, and the
pricing by our foreign competitors. My Lexus cost me $30,000.
In downtown Tokyo, that same car, I priced it, is $45,000.
So my point is, I am trying to bring around our
administration to where even Ronald Reagan was. He was long on
common sense. We were losing out on semiconductors and still
are, but he put in a voluntary restraint agreement on
semiconductors and they instituted at the congressional level,
Senator Danforth and myself, Sematech. We had VRAs in steel and
automobiles and machine tools, and it worked, and it saved
those industries.
Now, we have got to start competing here. I am looking at
the Ambassador from Singapore, Frank Levin. He recently
concluded this United States-Singapore free trade agreement,
and Levin said in the long run, and I quote him, the most
significant economic aspect of this FTA, free trade agreement,
could be provisions allowing products assembled in the two
Indonesian outer islands to be counted as Singaporean in origin
for the purpose of the FTA. This would allow U.S. electronics
manufacturers to take advantage of low wage rates on those
islands to assemble components from Singapore and then the
electronic products can enter the United States duty free. Do
you agree with that?
Secretary Evans. Well, I have not seen the statement. You
read the statement. I have not seen it before. I mean, I must
say that I think that when you have a free trade agreement with
Singapore, you have a free trade agreement with Singapore. You
do not have a free trade agreement with some other country, or
some other island. That is who the free trade agreement is
with.
And so I think there is a basic principle, and it is
products and services that come from that country, not from
some other sovereign nation or country to that country and into
the United States, but I must admit, I do not know the exact
relationship of those islands with Singapore. Are they separate
countries or separate sovereign nations, or are they a part of
Singapore? I do not think they are.
Senator Hollings. Well, it is not the technicality of the
thing, it is the actual tenor and thrust of low wage rates.
That is what happened--58,000 textile jobs have gone from my
little State of South Carolina down to Mexico. If your
competition leaves, you have got to leave, so that swishing
sound that old Ross talked about, I am telling you right now,
we can hear it loud and clear in the Piedmont section of South
Carolina, I can tell you.
That is the whole point. What we have got to do is start
competing, and we have done everything for that export
administration. Your Commerce Department has commercial
attaches around the world, and we have done everything to help
our businesses compete.
One other thing that we do is just that, the Advanced
Technology Program. The distinguished Secretary talks growth,
growth, growth. That is the buzzword around here. You get
everybody on the message, so the growth thing is the Advanced
Technology Program. That gives the growth. There is not any
question.
We have got I do not know how many studies. I think there
were 14 studies, the Department of Commerce Inspector General,
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research
Council, and go right on down the list, and they found that,
quote, ATP could use more funding effectively and efficiently,
and we cut and eliminated that and the Manufacturers Extension
Partnership Program, but we give money to the Bureau of
Economic Analysis to get more analysis. That is not going to
hire any more people, except pointy-headed intellectuals, as
George Wallace would say.
We give money to the Patent and Trademark Office----
Senator Gregg. We don't quote from George Wallace.
Senator Hollings. That's right. Well, I thought I'd get
you. I like to stick the Chairman every now and again.
We give money to the International Trade Administration for
promoting U.S. exports and all those things, they are not going
to get growth. The one thing that is going to get the growth,
and it has proved out, and they are not pork, they have got to
be vetted by the National Academy of Engineering, like you
said, and NIST.
I got together--we had a fellow over there, Craig Fields in
DARPA, and he found out the Navy program for research was rapid
manufactured parts. We got it going through the Department of
Commerce, because a boat would break down in the gulf and the
destroyer is 30 years old, or whatever it is, and the part,
they have to languish there in the gulf for 2 months and then
go back. We have got a system now where they do not languish
over 24 hours.
So we have got DARPA, we have got NIST, we have got the
Advanced Technology Program, and why do we eliminate it?
Secretary Evans. Well, again, like I said, those are good
programs, no question about it.
Senator Hollings. That is all. You do not have to explain
any more. I am going to quote you.
Secretary Evans. You can.
Senator Hollings. Thank you. I would yield to the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
Secretary Evans. Good.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary Evans,
I would like to talk a little bit about the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Program.
I know this administration supports research and
development to maintain American leadership and technology
development and commercialization. To quote from the Commerce
Department's Web site, ``Americans will never win the game to
see who can pay their workers less. We do not want to, and
continued innovation means that we will not have to. Innovation
excellence starts with research and development, and since
taking office, the President has proposed record levels of
Federal R&D.''
So Mr. Secretary, I am concerned and puzzled by your
proposed budget, which includes only $12.6 million for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, called MEP. This
program has always had bipartisan congressional support. By way
of comparison for fiscal year 2003, we funded the program at
well over $100 million. Given the current situation, I
therefore cannot understand why you would virtually eliminate a
program like this, which truly makes a difference.
The United States is losing hundreds of thousands of
manufacturing jobs and production know-how to low-wage
countries like China. We have our largest imbalance with China,
an imbalance growing by 30 percent a year. In my State of
Wisconsin, the jobs we are losing to overseas production are
high-paying jobs.
To help counter this trend, my State MEP centers work
directly with small manufacturers to help these companies
compete by being more productive and more effective, and so my
question is, why are you virtually gutting Federal support for
this program? Virtually half of the program's costs and
expenses come from the Federal Government. Small manufacturers
in my State have said this program is important to them, and so
I do not know what I should be telling them with respect to
what I know is your commitment to the development of small
manufacturing innovation, efficiency, technology, and your
apparent opinion that the MEP program is not all that
important. I just give you this map for you to peruse.
Secretary Evans. Sure, thanks Senator.
Senator Kohl. Those MEP centers, as you can see, are all
over the country. There are hundreds and hundreds of MEP
centers, and without Federal support they may well evaporate.
Senator Gregg. Aren't they called Hollings centers?
Senator Kohl. Pardon me?
Senator Gregg. No, I think they're called Hollings centers,
aren't they?
Senator Kohl. Hollings centers?
Secretary Evans. You know, I will say what I said earlier,
I think, that there are certainly some very good stories from
ATP that one can look to and can say were successes. I think
the same thing applies to MEP, the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program. I travel all across the country on
university campuses, from time to time, talk to universities
and how they are participating in these MEPs with the Federal
Government, with other cities, with counties and so I am very
much aware of the programs.
First of all, I would just say it is a matter of
priorities, and understanding at some point you have to draw
the line, and we are not all going to draw the line at exactly
the same place, and I know that and you know that, and so I am
more than happy to work through the budget process with the
committee and talk about our differences with respect to these
programs, but when you look at the MEP program, what confuses
me is why this program would not be a success in the private
sector, and the reason I say that is because the studies people
show me and want to give to me in the way of results are the
sizeable returns that people enjoy by participating in the MEP.
Well, having been somebody that was out there in the
private sector for some 26 years of my life, that looks like to
me a pretty good opportunity to start a business, because if I
can give those kinds of returns to some of the small businesses
in the area, then it seems like they would be willing to pay me
for that service I am providing to them.
You know, I had the same kind of issue, the same related
issue with ATP, and that I really felt like if we were going to
provide funding for seed capital, or venture capital for
research, and if it is successful, then maybe some of that
ought to come back to the American taxpayer that funded it to
begin with.
So I think it is good programs that--what I see opportunity
for, I see some opportunity for the private sector to step in
and provide the same kind of service. And I also see an
opportunity, if it is successful, if it works, then maybe there
is an opportunity to return some of the benefits, not all of
them, but some of those benefits back to the American taxpayer
to help pay for the program, if the program were to continue.
Senator Kohl. I do not totally disagree with what you are
saying, but my response is that this is not entirely a Federal
program. This is a 50-50 partnership between the Federal
Government and private industry, and so the question is not
really why does the Federal Government have to fund this
program entirely. It is that, what is wrong with the
partnership concept?
I mean, if this were 100 to nothing, or 100 to zero in
terms of percent of funding, I would understand what you are
saying, but it is 50-50. It seems to me that is reasonable--
reasonable, and I guess my question is, why would you all take
the position that on your list of priorities, in terms of
funding, that almost comes down to zero?
Secretary Evans. Well, again I guess I would say, Senator,
it is priorities. I mean, like you, we think about the Federal
debt and the deficit, and there are lots of worthwhile programs
that we would like to see funded, but the resources are not
there to fund all of the programs that we would all like to see
funded, and so you have to draw the line some place. You have
to make tough choices, and I understand that, we will have
differences of opinion as to where the line should be drawn,
and this is one of those areas where we have a difference of
opinion.
I am not here saying that these programs have not provided
a service. I am not here saying that there is not some good
results to point to historically, but I am saying that one,
particularly at this moment in our history, we have some
priorities of homeland security and national security that we
are all certainly very focused on, and these are just some
tough choices that have to be made, but certainly, as I
mentioned, I look forward to working through the process,
working with the committee and working through our differences
of opinion.
Senator Kohl. Well, thank you. I will keep on badgering if
I can, and see if we cannot get something.
Secretary Evans. Sure, sure.
Senator Gregg. The Senator from Wisconsin is a very good
badger.
Secretary Evans. Very good, very good. Not bad. Very good,
Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, following up on the Senator's
point, your comment that maybe there should be a greater return
to the taxpayer when these MEPs produce a commercial event that
has profitability, do you have language that you would insert
to change the programs to create that atmosphere?
Secretary Evans. No, Mr. Chairman, I have not. It is
something that we would be glad to look at and would be glad to
think about. It just seems that if you have a company that
enjoys some 25 percent return or 35 percent return from the
services they have been provided, then maybe they would want to
return some funding back to the center to help some other small
manufacturer who comes along.
Senator Gregg. I'm attracted to the idea, so if we end up
refunding these as a result of the Senator from Wisconsin's
energies, I would be interested if you had language that could
accomplish that as a part of the exercise.
Secretary Evans. I know if I was out there running a small
business and I had this available to my company, and it was
successful, and we had great results from it, I would feel some
kind of responsibility to support that program in a pretty
direct kind of way, and so that the program could benefit other
small, or other manufacturing companies that come along behind.
Senator Kohl. They do. I say, the program is supported 50
percent by these companies, so it is not as though they are
only taking. They are also giving to the program.
Senator Gregg. On ATP, we really do not have any place in
the Government right now where people who are coming up with
creative ideas on the issue of counterterrorism, technology
ideas, can go and get a grant quickly that would allow them to
expand their efforts, and I do not know about other offices.
Maybe once a month somebody comes in with some fairly unique
idea as to how they are going to screen somebody, or what they
can do, or how they are going to develop something.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR COUNTERTERRORISM
Would it make sense if we reauthorized or refunded ATP to
redirect it into an exercise of being more focused on
counterterrorism, producing technology for counterterrorism,
experimental or commercial?
Secretary Evans. I guess what has been called to my
attention is, Homeland Security is requesting some $900 million
in this area of R&D for counterterrorism.
Senator Gregg. How are they going to oversee that? Well, we
will have Secretary Ridge. We will ask him.
We have been joined by the chairman of the full committee.
Senator Stevens. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Gregg. Do you have anything more?
Senator Hollings. Yes, I will, but for example, from 1992
to 2004, the ATP funded $270 million in projects with primary
relevance to the detection of and protection from and response
to potential terrorist activity. They have been coming to my
office, too, and I have been sending them over there and it is
working. You are helping Secretary Ridge.
Senator Gregg. I think it makes a lot of sense.
Senator Stevens, do you have any questions?
Senator Stevens. No, I had no questions this year. I just
stopped by to see our friend and say hello.
Senator Hollings. Well, I have a few more questions, and I
am like Senator Stevens and I am going to work with the
chairman. Your budget is in good shape, and I will work with
Chairman Gregg for what he thinks we ought to do.
But frankly, I am worried about this war, and I have moved
from the military to the trouble we have in the world
community. If the President asked me to come over in the next
10 minutes and asked me what to do, I would say, I would get
that best friend of yours, Secretary Evans, up to Canada. You
cannot just get everybody--I see on my TV this morning the
President is on the phone trying to still get support. Isn't
that a hell of a note? But he is on the phone this morning
trying to get support.
Now, we all support it, we are committed, but in my war,
World War II, the first in was Canada. So we have got to get
you back involved. You come with the calling card of President
Bush--and you know how to talk to people. You can help us with
Vicente Fox. You know him down there in Mexico.
When you start an engagement of this kind, and can't even
get Mexico and Canada, we have got to start working back
upstream now to get some help from the United Nations and
everything else like that, and do not worry about budgets and
ATP and MEP and all that other stuff. Right now, let us get
going on this war. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, we lost a big one yesterday
as far as my State is concerned, but I know we have had talks
about the Alaska gas pipeline. We have a new hybrid proposal we
want to discuss with the administration, and I hope we can get
some time on your schedule to discuss that sometime soon.
Secretary Evans. We can.
Senator Stevens. We will be coming in this week and next
week to talk about it. It's not an immediate project--it won't
run gas to our system before 2011, but it is an 8-year project
at a minimum. If we can get it off the ground this year it will
be very meaningful. I hope you are both familiar with that
project.
All of the gas that is produced with 17 billion barrels of
oil we produce and send down the Alaska pipeline was separated
out and put right back in the ground right there at Prudhoe. We
do not have to explore for it. All we have to have is a
mechanism to transport it, and it is a substantial amount of
gas.
Secretary Evans. I would be glad to come by at your
calling. Just give me a call and I will be there.
Senator Stevens. Maybe we can arrange for you to come back
up to our State again this summer and take a look at it.
Secretary Evans. Good. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. While we are here, I do want to acknowledge
and thank the chairman of the committee for returning a hearing
room to its rightful spot.
Senator Hollings. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We very much appreciate it.
Senator Hollings. I was chairman of legislative
appropriations. I walked in here and it was just a pile of wood
and paint cans and everything else, and the Architect of the
Capitol was using this just as a storeroom to do repair work
all over, and we cleaned it up.
Senator Gregg. I believe this was the room that the
Dartmouth College case was argued in by Daniel Webster.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hollings. And Marbury v. Madison.
[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
HOMELAND SECURITY
Question. Mr. Secretary, BIS' work towards controlling the
proliferation of sensitive dual-use technologies is critical to our
national security. We are now faced with a restless nuclear power on
the Korean Peninsula that has already acquired the necessary
technologies to create weapons of mass destruction. There are many more
regimes in the world that are hostile to the United States and are
aggressively pursuing these technologies. How is BIS adapting to this
rapidly changing global security environment? How has its mission
changed since 9/11? Have BIS' requirements changed?
Answer. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) administers U.S.
export controls for dual-use items, including items that may be used
for the development of weapons of mass destruction, delivery vehicles
for these weapons, and advanced conventional arms. Its mission remains,
as before, to advance U.S. national security, foreign policy, and
economic interests. Since September 11, 2001, BIS has been actively
working with its counterparts in the Departments of State, Energy, and
Defense to ensure that export controls address current global security
challenges and, in particular, are adequate to prevent the acquisition
of such items and use by hostile nations or terrorist groups. To that
end, we have advocated proposals to strengthen export controls and
procedures in all four multilateral export control regimes (the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), the Australia Group (AG), the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR), and the Wassenaar Arrangement).
For example, in the NSG, the United States has proposed a ``watch
list'' of non-controlled commodities that could be of use to North
Korea's nuclear program. This list would be shared with non-regime
partners to make them more aware of the commodities that could aid
North Korea's nuclear program. The AG has accepted U.S. proposals to
tighten the controls on small fermenters that terrorists could use to
produce biological warfare agents. The AG also has agreed to a U.S.
proposal to tighten controls on technology transferred through
intangible means such as the Internet. In the MTCR, the United States
has advocated expanding the controls to include small unmanned aerial
vehicles that could have applicability in spreading chemical and
biological weapons agents. In the Wassenaar Arrangement, the United
States advocated amending the ``Initial Principles'' to include, as a
core regime objective, the prevention of terrorism.
These regime changes support BIS efforts to address security
concerns originating not only from hostile nations but also from
terrorist groups and individuals.
Question. Your fiscal year 2004 request for the Bureau is only $3.5
million above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. Is this amount
adequate to meet all of the new requirements you will surely face in
the upcoming months and years?
Answer. BIS is comfortable with the funding request contained in
the President's budget. In order to address new requirements, BIS
believes that the budget request should be funded in full.
Question. Is BIS' technology infrastructure adequate? From high-
powered data warehousing at headquarters to satellite phone capability
in the field, does BIS have the tools it needs to do its job?
Answer. BIS currently has an adequate technology infrastructure to
perform its mission-critical functions. BIS is in the process of
modernizing its Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS), which
was developed in the mid-1980s, from a mainframe-based system to a
modern server-based system with a relational database. BIS also has
upgraded all personal computers, desktop software, and
telecommunications links to provide its users with up-to-date
technology and to improve productivity. BIS continues to seek ways to
modernize its technology infrastructure to empower its employees to
deliver critical services to its customers.
To that end we note that in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal, additional resources are requested to support BIS's Seized
Computer Evidence Recovery System (SCERS) program. This program, which
uses evidence seized from computer disk drives, has a significant
backlog of evidence awaiting analysis. This delay has hindered the
processing of cases and the completion of time-sensitive
investigations. In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget, BIS seeks
additional personnel (one agent and two technical analysts) to staff a
modern SCERS lab, thus alleviating the burden placed on SCERS agents in
the field currently performing this work.
Question. To what extent will BIS be working with the Department of
Homeland Security? In your opinion, what is the appropriate
relationship between BIS and Homeland Security? To what degree will the
new Department influence BIS' mission, policies, and agenda?
Answer. BIS has an excellent working relationship with various
agencies now located in the Department of Homeland Security, and we
anticipate that we will continue to work well with those agencies. BIS
has long had an excellent working relationship with the U.S. Customs
Service in the administration and enforcement of dual-use export
controls. BIS also maintains a good working relationship with the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate of DHS,
to which BIS's Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office was transferred
earlier this year. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security
has not altered BIS's mission, policies, or agenda.
Question. To what extent is the Bureau of Industry and Security
working with the Department of State, which has responsibility for
regulating weapons exports? Could you describe how this relationship
has evolved since September 11? Are State and BIS sharing information
and lessons-learned? Are State and BIS collaborating their efforts
overseas, for example, sharing information about end-use checks,
monitoring, enforcement, and the like?
Answer. BIS continues to have a close working relationship with the
Department of State on the implementation of U.S. export controls. BIS
has been involved with the Departments of State, Defense, and Energy,
and the National Security Council in a comprehensive review of goods
and technologies on the U.S. Munitions List (USML). The State
Department implements export controls under the USML. In addition, by
Executive Order, State reviews export license applications submitted to
BIS and BIS-promulgated regulations concerning exports of U.S. dual-use
goods and technologies. BIS also works closely with State on changes to
the multilateral export control regime lists. Through these various
processes, State and BIS share information about countries and end-
users of concern. Moreover, since the mid-1990s, BIS has worked closely
with State to share information relevant to each other's watch lists
and end-use checks. Finally, BIS works closely with the State
Department in rendering technical assistance to other countries to
assist the development of strong indigenous export control systems and
improve cooperation in export controls, under the State Department
administered Export Control and Border Security program.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Question. Mr. Secretary, CIAO was created within the Department of
Commerce in fiscal year 1999. A conscious decision was made to put CIAO
at Commerce because of Commerce's strong ties to the private sector,
which controls the lion's share of our national critical infrastructure
(the Internet and utilities, to name just two examples). This month,
CIAO began its transition to the Department of Homeland Security.
How do you think CIAO's mission will change once it is incorporated
into the new Department? Will CIAO continue to have primary
responsibility for liaising with the private sector on matters relating
to critical infrastructure protection and for ensuring that the private
sector does not inadvertently create weaknesses in our national
critical infrastructure, or will this responsibility remain at
Commerce?
Answer. CIAO's mission consisted of three main functions related to
critical infrastructure protection when it transferred into the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): national outreach and awareness,
planning and policy coordination, and critical asset and
interdependency identification for federal government agencies (Project
Matrix). Consistent with the requirements of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, these functions were fully integrated into the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. Since private
industry owns and operates 85-90 percent of the nation's critical
infrastructures, we anticipate that DHS will need to continue to work
closely with U.S. industry, and has primary responsibility for doing
so. The Planning and Partnerships Office of the new Directorate retains
CIAO's core public-private partnering competencies and previously-built
contacts with the private sector. Commerce stands ready to assist where
appropriate.
Question. Do you think Homeland Security is well-suited to handle
the task of liaising with the private sector, as CIAO did while it was
at Commerce? How do you think companies will react to having DHS--which
is essentially a law enforcement agency--involved in their internal
efforts to strengthen their systems against attack?
Answer. Our experience suggests that U.S. industry generally
cooperates well with government agencies on issues of national security
and homeland defense. As we all have seen since September 11, 2001,
national and economic security depends on homeland security. Private
industry in general recognizes this new reality. We are optimistic that
industry and the Department of Homeland Security will have a productive
and mutually beneficial relationship with respect to critical
infrastructure protection. The Commerce Department stands ready to
assist in this effort as appropriate.
Question. With the transfer of CIAO, will the Bureau of Industry
and Security have any role in critical infrastructure protection?
Answer. The Department of Commerce generally, and the Bureau of
Industry and Security specifically, will continue to carry out programs
and activities relating to the economic security component of critical
infrastructure protection--as they did before CIAO was created in the
Department of Commerce. For example, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration has responsibility for spectrum
management and chairs the interagency Internet Protocol version 6
(IPv6) task force. The Technology Administration's National Institute
for Standards and Technology will continue its leading role in
developing standards relating to the physical and cyber security of
products, services, and processes, which are shared internationally as
well as domestically.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) continues to have
significant defense industrial base responsibilities. The defense
industrial base was recognized as one of the fourteen critical sectors
in the National Homeland Security Strategy. BIS administers the
priorities and allocations authority under Title I of the Defense
Production Act to ensure the timely delivery of industrial products,
equipment, materials, and services for approved national defense and
homeland security programs. Under that authority, BIS has assisted the
Transportation Security Administration and the FBI in acquiring
products and equipment needed for the war on terrorism. BIS also
conducts assessments of the viability of various critical industry
sectors. Finally, consistent with its mission of furthering U.S.
national security and economic security, BIS continues to advocate the
importance of protecting the country's critical infrastructures and
assets.
national institute of standards and technology (nist)/homeland security
Question. It is clear that NIST and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) must develop a close working relationship. Have you had
any preliminary talks with Secretary Ridge on this subject? Do you
believe the Director of NIST has a clear understanding of what will be
expected of NIST under the new homeland security framework? Does he
have the resources he needs to meet these requirements?
Answer. There have been extensive discussions between the
Department of Commerce (DoC) and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) on the need to develop a close and effective collaboration. Such
discussions led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
on May 22, 2003, between the Technology Administration (TA) of DoC and
the Science and Technology (S&T) Directorate of DHS. The MOU allows the
S&T Directorate to leverage TA's, and specifically NIST's, expertise in
measurement science and standards to accelerate the development,
testing, evaluation, and deployment of homeland security technologies.
S&T and TA seek to collaborate on research and planning activities, and
share where appropriate facilities, personnel, and scientific
information. This MOU builds on the long history of collaboration
between NIST and the various agencies incorporated into DHS, such as
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP). To further improve ties between NIST and
DHS in the areas of measurements and standards, NIST has detailed on a
full-time basis the Division Chief from its Ionizing Radiation Division
and a staff member (part time) from its Computer Security Division to
the Office of Standards in the DHS S&T Directorate.
The Director of NIST has a clear understanding of NIST's role in
homeland security. This role is defined by NIST's unique mission to
develop and promote measurement, standards, and technology to enhance
productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life.
Because of the overwhelming importance of homeland security to the
quality of our life, NIST will work with the new DHS to ensure that the
appropriate measurements and standards are in place to support the
efforts of DHS in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive detection and defense, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure
protection, first responders, etc. NIST's partnership with DHS will
build upon years of experience working with a number of the agencies
making up the new Department.
NIST is also building upon its experience in consensus standards
and its partnerships with standards development organizations (SDO's)
to address the needs for homeland security standards. The Chief of
NIST's Standards Services Division is the government co-chair of the
ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel that is coordinating the efforts
of standards development organizations (SDOs) in developing standards
required for homeland security technologies.
Because of the importance of homeland security to our citizens,
NIST has redirected resources to develop the critical measurements and
standards in this area. When appropriate, NIST homeland security
efforts are supplemented by funds from other government agencies. When
sufficient funding is not available through these approaches, the
Administration has proposed budget initiatives for NIST in the area of
measurements and standards for homeland security. For fiscal year 2004
the following homeland security budget initiatives have been proposed:
Homeland Security: Standards, Technology, and Practices for Buildings
and First Responders ($4.0 million, 7 permanent positions, and 5 FTE);
Measurement Infrastructure for Homeland Security ($5.3 million, 12
permanent positions, and 9 FTE); and Standards for Biometric
Identification Systems ($1.0 million, 4 permanent positions, and 3
FTE).
NIST/LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGIES STANDARDS
Question. Mr. Secretary, a great deal of funding has been earmarked
during the last two years to help first responders purchase the
equipment they need to effectively combat terrorism. Justice has been
doing some work in the area, but standards-development is really NIST's
bailiwick.
The President's budget does not request any direct funding for the
Office of Law Enforcement Standards at NIST. Are you planning to
request funds for OLES in the fiscal year 2005 budget request? Wouldn't
you agree that there is a significant need in this area and that NIST
is uniquely qualified to fill it?
Answer. In response to your statement, developing performance
standards for communication and personal protection equipment for first
responders is very important and the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) has an important role to play here. For several
years, NIST's Office of Law Enforcement Standards (OLES) has been
working with the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) and other government agencies developing performance standards
for first responders.
The ability of law enforcement and public safety agencies to
communicate and exchange data in critical situations is fragmented by
equipment incompatibilities and the lack of standards to provide a
common, nationwide approach to telecommunications and information
sharing. In its efforts to resolve this issue, NIST's OLES has been
working hard on a Public Safety Communications Standards program geared
toward solving public safety interoperability and information sharing
problems by developing and adopting NIJ standards for voice, data,
image, and video information transfers for first responders. In
addition, OLES has been holding discussions with end users about their
requirements and evaluating commercial devices instrumental to ensure
that the equipment and technologies currently being used by the U.S.
first responders community are interoperable, safe, dependable, and
effective.
In addition, OLES has been managing a program since 1999, to
develop CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive) protective equipment standards for emergency first
responders. This program, initially funded by NIJ, will continue with
funding provided by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). An
Interagency Agreement has been signed between the ODP, formerly of the
Office of Justice Programs, now part of the Borders and Transportation
Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, to continue the
program managed by OLES for the development of a national suite of
CBRNE protective equipment standards for emergency first responders.
This program led to a National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) standard for Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
and Air Purifying Respirators (gas masks) and produced an important set
of guides and databases to help emergency first responders in the
evaluation and purchase of chemical and biological detection, personal
protective, and communications equipment. The continuation of this
program under ODP will be significantly expanded beyond development of
personal protective equipment standards to address radiological
threats, decontamination standards, and explosive detection standards.
Yes, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
believes there is a significant need in the criminal justice and public
safety area and NIST is uniquely qualified to fill it. NIST has
successfully filled these needs over the past 32 years through a number
of reimbursable agreements with other agencies, such as the Department
of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the Department of
Transportation, and most recently with the Department of Homeland
Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness.
The $3 million funding for NIST's Office of Law Enforcement
Standards (OLES) provided in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Act will go a long way in helping NIST to ensure that
NIST has the critical personnel with the expertise to implement law
enforcement standards initiatives proposed by their partner federal
agencies as specifically stated in the Act itself. This funding
supports NIST with an appropriation in fiscal year 2003 for the staff
and administrative costs related to the Office of Law Enforcement
Standards, giving NIST the means to independently hire, maintain and
manage the appropriate technical expertise to perform its
responsibilities to the law enforcement community. In addition, it
allows NIST to devote the entirety of its funding from reimbursable
sponsors to the technical needs of those sponsors, without diverting
any funding from sponsors to cover staff and administrative costs at
NIST.
At the time the fiscal year 2004 President's budget request was
submitted, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act had not been
enacted. Therefore, the fiscal year 2004 President's budget request
builds from the fiscal year 2003 President's budget request, which did
not include any direct appropriated funding for NIST's OLES. Decisions
on the funding priorities to be included in the President's fiscal year
2005 budget have not been finalized, and we will bear your concerns in
mind as we evaluate the many competing requests for funding.
NIST/WORLD TRADE CENTER INVESTIGATION
Question. Before NIST took over the World Trade Center
investigation, there was a huge controversy over whether too much of
the structural steel from the Twin Towers had been sold to scrap yards,
creating an impossible situation for NIST's scientist and engineers.
Now that NIST is seven months into the investigation, has it been able
to gather enough evidence including structural steel to conduct the
investigation? Could you report on NIST's progress or any preliminary
findings from the investigation?
Answer. Yes, the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) is basing its review, analysis, modeling, and testing work for
the World Trade Center (WTC) investigation on a solid foundation of
technical evidence.
NIST has in its possession nearly 250 pieces of WTC steel. The vast
majority of the pieces are of significant size and include perimeter
prefabricated column-spandrel elements, rectangular box beams, wide
flange sections, truss sections, channels and several smaller pieces,
such as bolts. As of March 28, 2003, NIST has catalogued 235 pieces of
WTC steel which includes a database with photographic records and
member markings. In addition, NIST has examined additional steel stored
by the Port Authority at JFK airport and has transported 12 specimens
to NIST. NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC
towers is adequate for purposes of the investigation.
NIST has also received considerable cooperation and large volumes
of information from a variety of organizations and agencies
representing the building designers, owners, leaseholders, suppliers,
contractors, and insurers.
Local authorities providing information include the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) and its
consultants and contractors; the Fire Department of New York (FDNY);
the New York Police Department (NYPD); the New York City Department of
Design and Construction (DDC); the New York City Department of
Buildings (DOB); and the New York City Office of Emergency Management
(OEM). In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) provided correspondence sent to it regarding the evacuation
experience of WTC occupants on September 11, 2001.
NIST also has received information from Silverstein Properties
(Silverstein) and its consultants and contractors; the group of
companies that insured the WTC towers and its technical experts; Nippon
Steel; Laclede Steel; Isolatek International, formerly known as U.S.
Mineral Products; Marsh & McLennan (a tenant of WTC 1), and Roger Morse
Associates. The information from Silverstein and the insurance
companies includes the large body of technical work completed by both
parties as part of the insurance litigation involving the WTC towers,
such as reports on the structural collapse, fire spread and severity,
and wind tunnel test results for the WTC towers. In addition, technical
experts for both parties independently provided extensive briefings to
the WTC investigation team and discussed the tenability environment and
the evacuation procedures in the buildings.
Solid progress has been made by the investigation team at the one-
third mark of the ongoing 24-month effort. On May 7, 2003, NIST
released a progress report (http://wtc.nist.gov/) on the WTC
investigation, its second since the effort began in August 2002. This
interim report does not include any conclusions or make any
recommendations, since the investigation is still in its early stages.
Key points in the progress report included:
--a status update on efforts to collect critical data about the WTC
disaster of September 11, 2001, such as building documents,
video and photographic records, emergency response records and
oral histories (a complete listing of materials collected to
date and those items still needed are included in the report);
--an interim report that documents the procedures and practices used
to provide the passive fire protection (fireproofing) for the
floor system of the WTC towers (nothing in the interim report
based on a review of factual data in documents obtained by NIST
should be taken to imply that the floor trusses played a
critical role in the collapse of the WTC towers);
--a detailed description of the key factors that NIST is considering
in its analysis of the various collapse scenarios hypothesized
for the WTC buildings, including fire endurance testing of a
typical WTC floor system and individual steel members;
--a look at the integrated approach for identifying the most probable
of the technically possible collapse sequences for WTC 1 and 2
(the Twin Towers) and WTC 7; and
--a review of NIST plans originally presented in April 2003 for
studying the WTC evacuation and emergency response by
collecting first-person data from survivors (both WTC occupants
and first responders), families of victims, and individuals
with operational and command authority during the WTC disaster.
NIST/WARWICK, RHODE ISLAND FIRE INVESTIGATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, in January, we in New England suffered a
horrible tragedy when 96 people were killed in a nightclub fire in West
Warwick, Rhode Island. Was the National Construction Safety Team Act
successful in helping avoid confusion over responsibility for the
investigation into this tragedy? How is the Administration proposing to
fund this and future investigations? If NIST is going to be responsible
for investigating these events when they occur, should funds be set
aside within NIST for this purpose to avoid the delay in starting the
investigation?
Answer. The tragic fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, is the type
of event that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
would have investigated under its existing authority prior to the
passage of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. What the
Act has done, however, is to allow us to respond immediately and to
raise the awareness and appreciation of our activities in the eyes of
local officials and the other Federal agencies that are conducting
investigations. The Act provides for the criminal investigation to have
priority over NCST activities. We have briefed local and state
authorities on the role and objectives of the NCST investigation, and
established liaisons with the Rhode Island State Fire Marshal's office,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the
U.S. Fire Administration. The NCST is gathering evidence, to the extent
possible, independent of any criminal investigations.
The Rhode Island investigation plan was issued based upon the
redirection of base funds. The plan targets completion of the
investigation by the end of calendar year 2003.
NIST has not been appropriated any additional funding for
activities associated with the NCST Act. Where appropriate, NIST will
continue to undertake investigations of major building disasters as
authorized by law.
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, INCREASE IN USER FEES
Question. PTO's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes a 15
percent increase in user fees. This fee increase will mean an
additional $300 million in fee revenue for the PTO that it would
otherwise not collect. How is a 15 percent increase in user fees
justified when, under the current plan, PTO does not expect to
significantly decrease patent pendency?
Answer. The fee legislation currently pending in Congress will
generate additional revenues and ensure the implementation of the
USPTO's 21st Century Strategic Plan. If the fee legislation is not
implemented for fiscal year 2004, the USPTO's projection of fee
collections is $1,302.7 million and if the fee legislation is
implemented before fiscal year 2004, the USPTO's projection of fee
collections is $1,503.8 million in fiscal year 2004. This equates to an
additional $201.1 million, or a 15 percent increase. The proposed Fee
Modernization Act of 2003 is a critical component to the successful
implementation of the strategic plan. The strategic plan aims to
modernize the agency for the 21st century by addressing patent pendency
as well as quality, workload, and e-Government. As Under Secretary
James E. Rogan has testified before Congress, without the additional
fees secured by passage of a fee bill this year, average patent
pendency will climb to more than 40 months by 2008.
The USPTO has been responsive to concerns that it continually
attempts to address workload demands by hiring increasingly more patent
examiners. The 21st Century Strategic Plan addresses this concern
through a number of initiatives that will enable patent examiners to
focus on the core mission of the organization--the examination of
patent applications. These initiatives include the multi-track patent
examination process, the mutual exploitation of search results,
competitive sourcing of search, and the proposed fee restructuring.
These initiatives, plus Under Secretary Rogan's top-to-bottom review
resulted in a plan that reduces patent examiner hires through fiscal
year 2008 by 2,400 compared to the fiscal year 2003 Business Plan.\1\
As noted in the strategic plan, average patent pendency time will
increase over the short-term and be at 27 months in 2008. The USPTO
will continue to work toward reducing pendency and pursue the long-term
optimum goal of 18 months pendency beyond the five-year horizon of the
strategic plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2003 Business Plan was submitted to the Congress in
February 2002 as part of the USPTO's fiscal year 2003 Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ATTACHMENT]
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO ENACT FEE LEGISLATION IN 2003
Inability to Hire Needed Examiners.--In fact, patent pendency will
increase dramatically because of our inability to hire 2,900 new patent
examiners. An inability to hire patent examiners beginning in fiscal
year 2003 and the out years will increase processing delays and
severely impact USPTO's ability to bring down pendency. Over 140,000
patents will not issue over the next five years if the USPTO is held to
current fees and funding levels.
Unexamined Patent Applications Skyrocket.--If recommended funding
levels are not appropriated in future years, the inventory of
unexamined patent applications would skyrocket to over 1,000,000
applications by 2008 (more than double the current amount).
Average Patent Pendency Skyrockets.--As measured from the time of
filing, pendency would jump to over 40 months in 2008, the highest
pendency rate in more than four decades.
Delaying Full e-Government.--Inability to meet the stated goals of
a fully electronic, e-Government environment for patent and trademark
applications.
PTO/FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand the PTO is now placing a
higher priority on goals like quality assurance and e-government
initiatives (the latter goal being driven primarily by OMB). While I
agree that these are valid goals, I remain concerned about the issue of
patent pendency. I understand that there is currently a 400,000 patent
backlog. How will the Five Year Strategic Plan help decrease patent
pendency? Will the PTO remain committed to the goal of 18 months for
patent pendency? When can we realistically expect PTO to meet this
goal?
Answer. As you know, there is general agreement among the nation's
CEOs, the inventor community, throughout lawyers in the bar, and people
in the capital equity markets that issuing U.S. patents faster (vis-a-
vis reducing pendency) without adequate quality assurance behind them
would lead to uncertainty for the tech community and be a terrible
mistake overall. Further, if we do not complete our e-government
initiatives to electronically process patent applications, we would
remain less able to respond quickly to changes in workloads.
As Under Secretary Rogan has also testified before Congress,
without the passage of the Fee Bill, the USPTO's patent application
backlog is predicted to rise to 1,000,000 by 2008 and more than 140,000
patents will not issue in that time frame. We continue to work on all
of these agency goals--pendency, backlog, quality assurance--through
the 21st Century Strategic Plan and its initiatives. [See following
graphs.]
While the USPTO is making quality and e-Government initiatives an
immediate priority, it continues to implement initiatives to support
the USPTO's long-term pendency goals. The 21st Century Strategic Plan
has aggressive timeliness goals: to make available, on average, a first
Office action for first-filed U.S. non-provisional patent applications,
at the time of 18 month publication, and a patent search report for
other patent applications in the same time frame--by far the fastest in
the world. This will be accomplished by redesigning the entire patent
search and examination system based upon multiple-examination tracks,
greater reliance on qualified patent search services, and variable,
incentive-driven fees.
Upon enactment of the Fee Modernization Act of 2003, the USPTO will
move from a ``one-size-fits-all'' patent examination process to a
multi-track examination process that leverages search results of other
organizations and permits applicants to have freedom of choice in the
processing of their applications. The new process will eliminate
duplication of effort, encourage greater participation by the applicant
community and the public, and improve the quality of patents and
decrease processing time. For example, the proposed fee legislation
contains significant authorities needed to implement the strategic
plan, such as providing refundable search and examination fees rather
than the composite fee currently charged. This change will provide
patent applicants with the opportunity to terminate the application
process because an invention does not have sufficient commercial
viability and obtain a refund. This would abandon the application and
obviate the need for the USPTO to proceed with the examination of the
application. The USPTO will continue to work toward reducing pendency
and pursue the long-term optimum goal of 18 months pendency beyond the
five-year horizon of the strategic plan. Their best estimate is that it
will take at least a decade to achieve the 18-month goal.
Under a new paradigm, the USPTO will concentrate Office expertise
as much as possible on the core government function of examination, and
over the five-year horizon of the strategic plan, expects to hire 2,400
fewer patent examiners than originally envisioned. However, they will
make available, on average, a first Office action for first-filed U.S.
non-provisional applications at the time of 18 month publication, and a
patent search report for other patent applications in the same time
frame which industry acknowledges is a highly beneficial interim
pendency solution.
PAPERLESS PATENT APPLICATION PROCESS
Question. Could you describe PTO's progress towards instituting a
paperless patent application process? How high a priority is this for
the PTO? How is this related to PTO's implementation of the various e-
government initiatives?
Answer. The USPTO's priorities in the 21st Century Strategic Plan
are to (1) improve patent and trademark quality, (2) aggressively
implement e-Government to handle workload associated with the 21st
Century economy, and (3) reduce patent and trademark pendency. One of
the USPTO's highest priority e-Government initiatives is delivering an
operating pipeline to process patent applications electronically by
October 1, 2004, including electronic capture of all post-filing paper
correspondence. At the center of the e-Government strategy is the
collaboration with the European Patent Office (EPO) to use their
ePHOENIX system, and collaboration with the Trilateral Offices (EPO and
the Japan Patent Office) to achieve common goals and share systems
already in use or development. The USPTO's Tools for Electronic
Application Management (TEAM) project will also continue to support the
e-Government strategy.
The USPTO is on schedule to meet its October 1, 2004 planned
electronic patent application processing date as follows:
In May 2003, a prototype Image File Wrapper (IFW) system was
installed in five Patent Examining Pilot Art Units, and more than 100
patent examiners and support staff were trained on the use of the
system.
In June 2003, the USPTO will begin scanning all newly filed patent
applications into the IFW system, and the digital copy replaces paper
as the official patent file.
In July 2003, the USPTO will begin full production roll-out of the
IFW system. Seven Art Units, comprised of about 100 employees, will be
added to the system each week. Upwards of 7,000 applications will be
scanned per week resulting in adding over 8 million pages to the
database each month.
In December 2003, all working patent application files of the three
Technology Centers moving to the USPTO's new Carlyle facility in
Alexandria, Virginia, will be operating on the IFW system. At this
time, there will be over 2,000 total users of the system.
In January 2004, the USPTO will begin the final phase of full
deployment of the IFW system throughout the Patent Examining Corps.
In October 2004, all patent application processing will occur in a
totally electronic environment that will be used by over 4,000 patent
examiners and 2,500 support staff.
Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the USPTO will collaborate with the
European Patent Office to initiate an effort to process captured patent
application images into text and associated images. This effort will
use an eXtensible Markup Language (XML)-based data representation
enabling text-based patent application processing (e.g., document
navigation, document searching) by fiscal year 2006.
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Question. Mr. Secretary, are you aware of the softwood lumber
issue, and can you give us a status report on the countervailing and
antidumping investigations? Are you aware of the particular problem
that some loggers and landowners in New England have had, which is that
a dumping tax was, in effect, imposed on U.S. lumber that is shipped to
Canada for processing? Is there going to be any opportunity for these
companies to present their case and thus rectify this situation?
Answer. After complex and thorough investigations, antidumping and
countervailing duty orders on softwood lumber from Canada were issued
in May 2002.
I am aware of the issue involving duties being imposed on U.S.
lumber shipped to Canada for processing and re-imported into the United
States. In fact, in February 2003, based on comments we received, the
Department issued a scope ruling to address this very issue. In
essence, we clarified that U.S.-origin softwood lumber that is further
processed in Canada may re-enter the United States free of antidumping
and countervailing duties so long as, at the time of importation, the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) can be satisfied that
the lumber was first produced in the United States. We believe that
this matter has now been resolved. Since the Department issued its
scope clarification, we have heard of no instances of BCBP collecting
duty deposits on U.S. lumber processed in Canada and returned to the
United States.
In addition, during May 2003, we received numerous requests for
administrative reviews of both the antidumping and countervailing duty
orders. We will be initiating the administrative reviews by the end of
June 2003.
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
Question. Mr. Secretary, what would be the advantages and
disadvantages of directly appropriating funds for central
administrative services, rather than depending upon the Working Capital
Fund?
Answer. The Department's Working Capital Fund (WCF) was established
on June 28, 1944, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 607 (15 U.S.C. 1521). The
Working Capital Fund is a no-year revolving fund established to support
departmental services delivered more efficiently, economically, or
advantageously on a centralized basis. Although activities and services
have changed over the years of operation, the WCF continues to display
full costing of services in bureau budgets. We see no advantages to
directly appropriating funds for central administrative services.
The disadvantages of directly appropriating funds for central
administration services include the loss of:
--Responsiveness/Flexibility for Bureaus.--The WCF provides a
mechanism where Bureaus can request additional services based
on their needs and funding availability, which varies year to
year. For example, additional guard service and security
investigations are requested as needed by Bureaus. If directly
appropriated, bureaus would lose this flexibility.
--Flexible Cost Sharing Mechanism.--As a result of the 9/11/01
tragedy, applications for government jobs through the Postal
Service were significantly delayed throughout the federal
government. Hiring came to a halt in most federal agencies.
However, DOC job applications continued to be processed through
Commerce Opportunities On-Line (COOL), an automated job
application system. Individual DOC Bureaus may not have been
able to fund this initiative alone, but collectively through
the WCF this on-line job application system was developed and
is being used successfully by all participating Bureaus.
--Economies of Scale.--The WCF provides a better vehicle to manage
inventory accounts and purchase large equipment or quantities
of items in which the Bureaus share in expenses and cost
savings. For example, we consolidate buying power and
management of services through large orders for administrative
services such as janitorial and printing. The WCF serves as a
better vehicle to realize volume cost savings.
--Full Cost in Bureau Budgets.--Costs charged through the WCF ensure
that the Bureau's full cost of doing business is reflected in
Bureau budgets, not in a general administration budget.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
Question. Secretary Evans, public television stations all across
the country are facing a federal mandate to convert to digital
broadcasting. Approximately 192 stations out of 355 have filed with the
Federal Communications Commission for a waiver because they are not
going to meet the May 2003 deadline due to lack of funding. These
stations are counting on the Public Telecommunications Facilities
Program (PTFP), which provides grants to public radio and TV stations
for equipment, to help them cross the digital TV finish line with a
federal matching grant.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission doesn't request
funding for this important matching grant program. Can you please
explain the thinking behind this decision?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes to suspend
funding for the PTFP grant program in fiscal year 2004. The President's
fiscal year 2004 Budget also proposes that Federal support of public
television's digital television conversion be funded through monies
previously appropriated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB). As you probably are aware, CPB is funded through a two-year
advance funding procedure. CPB's fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $380
million was enacted into law on January 10, 2002, as part of the Labor/
HHS/Education appropriation, Public Law 107-116.
The Administration proposes that up to $80 million in funding for
digital conversion grants be made available from within CPB's $380
million appropriation. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget
recognizes that the FCC digital conversion requirement should be
addressed in the next fiscal year.
To date, public television stations have kept pace with their
commercial counterparts in the digital conversion. PTFP's 2003 funding
will assist approximately 109 stations meet the FCC's 2004 deadline. In
addition, CPB has been appropriated $48 million for the digital
transition as part of its fiscal year 2003 appropriation. NTIA has been
in contact with CPB officials and understands that CPB will award these
funds later in the year. Given competing national budget priorities and
the availability of funds within CPB, the Administration believes that
suspending PTFP grants for a year is prudent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
TOURISM
Question. Our country's engagement with Iraq has begun. The
apprehension caused by this military conflict and terrorist incidents
within the United States has led to a decline in air travel. This,
coupled with weak economic conditions, has led to a decline in tourism
such as we saw after September 11, 2001, and Desert Storm.
Has the Commerce Department developed a strategy to reduce the
effects on the tourism industry from this decline in business? Does the
fiscal year 2004 budget request the necessary resources to shore up
this important industry?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriation, Congress
appropriated $50 million to market and promote the United States as a
tourism destination. We are working with industry to implement this
program and expect the tourism promotion campaign to commence in fiscal
year 2004.
The Department of Commerce is working in a number of ways to
support the travel and tourism industry and to assist in its recovery.
Immediately after 9/11, I reconvened the Tourism Policy Council (TPC)
to coordinate throughout government the programs and policies that
impact travel and tourism. The TPC provides the private sector with a
forum for making known to the Federal government the industry's ideas
and concerns. The TPC also ensures that the various Federal programs
are coordinated to maximize support for the industry.
The Department has launched a public-private partnership between
the United States and Japan to restore travel and tourism between our
two countries. Through promotional programs and events, this ``Tourism
Export Expansion Initiative'' also seeks to address Japanese concerns
about security and to convey that the United States is a safe
destination--key to restoring travel from this market.
The Department provides support to the travel and tourism industry
through its Market Development Cooperator Program (MDCP). The MDCP is a
competitive, matching grants program that seeks to leverage limited
Federal support for expanding exports of small and medium-sized
businesses. The Western States Tourism Policy Council received an award
to focus on a cooperative strategy to restore international tourism in
gateway communities in and around the federal public lands.
The Department also provided a $788,000 grant to the State of
Hawaii to help offset some of its losses attributable to the lack of
tourism resulting from 9/11. The project was awarded to the Hawaii
Visitor and Convention Bureau (Hawaii VCB) for a marketing campaign to
attract visitors. Marketing will be multi-media and focused on mainland
cities. The Hawaii VCB is based in Honolulu County but the project will
benefit all counties of Hawaii.
The Department provides support to the travel and tourism industry
through its market research program. The Department is responsible for
collecting and disseminating international traveler statistics,
including arrival statistics and visitor expenditures.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Question. Support for NOAA activities and resources in Hawaii. I am
concerned with what appears to be a lack of Administration support for
NOAA's commitment to address critical needs in Hawaii and the American
Flag Territories. I have two items of particular concern. First, the
NOAA ship VINDICATOR (to be renamed HI'I ALAKAI) will be converted this
fiscal year to support the National Ocean Service's activities in the
Pacific including coral reef research. I understand that while the
vessel will be ready for deployment during fiscal year 2004, the
Administration's budget proposal does not include any funding for the
operations of this vessel. Please explain in full detail why funds were
not requested by the Administration for the operation of the
VINDICATOR?
Answer. At the time the fiscal year 2004 budget was being
formulated, NOAA was still defining the multi-disciplinary mission
requirements that would be used to develop the specification package to
convert HI'I ALAKAI to meet the requirements. The likely date for award
of the shipyard conversion contract was still unknown as was the
expected amount of time that would be required for conversion and
shakedown of new or modified systems. Considering those unknowns, it
seemed unlikely the ship would be ready for operations early enough to
require fiscal year 2004 operating funds.
Second, the National Marine Fisheries Service will finally
establish the new Pacific Islands Region next month. I am informed that
NOAA does not have the two SES positions needed to provide the new
Region with its top level managers: a Regional Administrator and a
Science Director. In addition to the SES positions, I have not received
any credible confirmation that there will be adequate FTE positions to
staff the new Region.
Question. Please explain how you plan to address these personnel
problems and when we can expect these problems to be resolved.
Answer. With respect to the two Senior Executive Service (SES)
positions, the National Marine Fisheries Service has requested
authority from the Department of Commerce to recruit for a Pacific
Islands Regional Administrator and Science Center Director. We expect
to receive approval shortly and have these positions filled permanently
by the end of the year. To fully staff the Pacific Islands Region and
Science Center, we have projected a long term requirement (2010) of 187
FTE positions in addition to approximately 70 contract employees to
primarily assist in carrying out science related activities. Currently,
there are 117 funded FTE positions (including the two SES positions)
and 70 contract employees located in Honolulu that constitute the
initial staff for the Pacific Islands Region.
Question. Streamlining Fisheries Management. According to your
written statement, one of your Department's strategic goals is to
``improve and streamline the Nation's fishery management system to
better meet commercial, recreational, and conservation objectives.''
How do you plan to implement this goal on a national scale, and how far
will the Administration's request of $29.8 million in fiscal year 2004
go toward meeting this goal?
Answer. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) has
responsibility for the management of sustainable fisheries, the
recovery and protection of marine mammals and endangered and threatened
species, and the conservation and restoration of marine habitat. NOAA
Fisheries works closely with regional fishery management councils,
states, and other constituents to carry out these mandates. The
regulatory process affects not just marine resources but also the
associated people, businesses, and communities.
The goal of the Regulatory Streamlining Project (RSP) is to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of regulatory operations and decrease
NMFS's vulnerability to litigation. While the RSP initiative highlights
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a critical component of
the regulatory process, there are many other requirements that must be
addressed to ensure compliance with all of the agency's mandates.
Extensive analyses and documentation are required to comply with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and other associated mandates such as the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and Executive
Orders 12612, 12630, and 12866. NOAA's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for NOAA Fisheries includes $1.5 million specifically to implement RSP
during fiscal year 2004, as well as requests for additional resources
for increasing the number of stock assessments around the country and
the collection of comprehensive biological, economic, and sociological
data on an increasing number of species and the environmental factors
that influence their health and abundance. Current and improved
analyses are critical to front-loading the management and regulatory
process.
There are a number of other initiatives that are critical to
regulatory streamlining on a national level. These include electronic
rulemaking and information systems, improvements to the regulatory
process, professional training to ensure compliance with all relevant
laws and executive orders, and quality control/quality assurance.
Fiscal year 2004 funding would support the development of an
electronic web-based system for all regulatory and information
collection activities, including rule development, the maintenance of
administrative records or dockets that support rulemaking, and rule-
related communications with stakeholders. This initiative will directly
support the RSP by expanding constituent participation, facilitating
information dissemination, encouraging a more transparent decision
making process, fostering better collaboration with stakeholders, and
contributing to problem-solving early in the rulemaking process. NOAA
Fisheries' performance will be greatly enhanced as the time required to
review and process rules and regulations is reduced and long-term cost
savings are generated. NOAA Fisheries is developing a training program
specific to our rulemaking needs. The program will ensure that all
appropriate staff are fully conversant with Federal Register
documentation requirements, Agency documentation standards, compliance
with all legal requirements, etc. Existing internal and external
training opportunities will be utilized to the extent possible.
Nevertheless, it will be necessary to develop specialized training
which incorporates all applicable requirements relative to the fishery
management context. These needs will be assessed and addressed in
conjunction with development of revised Operational Guidelines. As
additional responsibility is transferred to the Regions under the RSP,
the Regional staff will need specialized training to able to fulfill
their changing responsibilities. In addition, during 2004, NOAA
Fisheries will undertake a retrospective bench-marking of past
performance dealing with litigation, timeliness, and the need for
Federal Register corrections.
As part of RSP, NOAA Fisheries delegated signature authority for
Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultations to Regional
Administrators, except for those that are national in scope (i.e.,
programmatic, multi-Regional, etc.) or for permits issued by the Office
of Protected Resources. In NOAA Fisheries Headquarters, the
consultation program must conduct national consultations, provide
guidance, training, expertise and program review to the Regional
Offices, as well as all Federal agencies, Congress, and constituents.
Regional Offices require additional resources to conduct a variety of
consultations and to provide expert advice to fishery management
councils and constituents. One important goal of the RSP is to have
NOAA Fisheries alert fishery management councils and others early in
their planning process of potential endangered species-fisheries
interactions.
A centerpiece of successful ESA section 7 delegation will be NOAA
Fisheries' continued commitment to train managers and consulting
biologists to ensure that they maintain the knowledge, skills, and
abilities that are necessary to implement the agency's section 7
program consistently, efficiently, and effectively. In particular, the
following programs would be supported by fiscal year 2004 funding:
Develop and implement basic and advanced section 7 training; develop
and implement section 7 training for managers and Senior Executives;
develop and implement annual regional section 7 workshops; and develop
and implement training sessions for special topics.
Question. You have highlighted the climate change request of $295.0
million for fiscal year 2004. However, $266 million, or 89 percent of
that figure, is listed as ``other programs,'' which are maintained at
fiscal year 2003 level funding. Please explain how the majority of
NOAA's $16.9 million increase for the Climate Change Research
Initiative shows a commitment to ``fully funding climate research''
when no new funds are being requested for long standing, well
respected, NOAA climate programs?
Answer. The $16.9 million request for the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI) represents a single NOAA climate request that is
targeted toward the highest priority national needs as described in
this Presidential initiative and in the National Academy of Sciences
2001 report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
This is on top of providing full funding for NOAA's long-standing
climate programs, including provision of inflationary costs and planned
pay raises in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget. The request
makes full use of NOAA's long-standing climate programs. In particular,
of the $16.9 million request, we are using existing programs and
laboratories as follows:
--Global Ocean Observing System (+$6.3 million request).--This effort
will be managed by NOAA's Office of Global Programs (OGP) and
is expected to include support for Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, University of Miami, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, and University of Hawaii, among others.
--Carbon Cycle Observing System ($5.0 million).--This system, focused
on determining the amount of carbon dioxide taken up by North
America, is to be operated by NOAA's Climate Monitoring and
Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL) in conjunction with the Climate
and Global Change Program. CMDL has substantial experience in
operating large-scale atmospheric observing systems, having
operated the Baseline Observatories (including Mauna Loa) that
document the global rise in greenhouse gases. The Climate and
Global Change Program will ensure university involvement in
modeling and data analysis.
--Aerosol-Climate Interactions ($1.0 million).--This increase builds
on an existing program aimed at one of the most prominent
uncertainties in climate projection, namely the impacts of fine
airborne particles on climate. This will be administered
through NOAA's Office of Global Programs and the Aeronomy
Laboratory.
--Supercomputing ($3.5 million).--This will support an increase in
climate computational ability at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory, which originated the modeling of climate
in the 1960's.
The remaining $1.1 million in NOAA's fiscal year 2004 requested
CCRI increase would be to fund the Climate Change Science Program
Office, which would provide coordinated national leadership for the
President's interagency climate and global change program, including
the coordination for CCRI among the Departments of Commerce, State,
Interior, Health and Human Services, Energy, Agriculture, and Defense,
and the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science
Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
Smithsonian Institution, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
In addition, fiscal year 2003 CCRI funding is also being used in
existing programs. CCRI supports expansion of the Regional Integrated
Science and Assessments Program (RISA) of OGP, which focuses on
developing pilot projects for using climate information and enhancing
collaboration among researchers, decision-makers, and the public. This
year, a new RISA project will be started in Hawaii at the East-West
Center looking at the options, risks, and uncertainties in mitigating
and adapting to year-to-year climate variability and long-term climate
change.
trade adjustment assistance
Question. The Commerce Department administers a small program,
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, that is authorized to be funded
at $16 million, but is currently operating at $10.4 million. Small
companies in my state have benefited from expertise provided through
this program and have improved their competitiveness against imports. I
was pleased that the fiscal year 2004 budget request includes funding
of $13 million, but am concerned by reorganization proposals. It is my
understanding that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) may
be moved into the Economic Development Administration regional offices
providing another level of bureaucracy to this small and successful
program. I am aware that discussions have been initiated to keep the
TAACs as free-standing programs under the International Trade
Administration. It is also my understanding that the formula is being
recalculated in a manner that would be unfavorable to the Western
Region TAAC. Could you discuss these proposed changes and the effect
they may have on the program?
Answer. EDA's transition to a decentralized program delivery
structure was begun during the last Administration. Current EDA
leadership is simply completing the process. EDA's Public Works,
Economic Adjustment and Local Technical Assistance (including
University Centers) programs are all administered by EDA's six regional
offices. The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Firms program is the
only regional program activity that is administered by EDA headquarters
rather than by the EDA regional offices.
The realignment of the TAA for Firms program to mirror the
decentralized structure of EDA's other programs will simply transfer
TAA for Firms processing functions, currently being performed in EDA
headquarters, to the regional offices. The requirements and basic
processes for the TAA for Firms program will remain unchanged. As with
EDA's other programs that have been successfully decentralized to the
regional level for many years, this action will bring the TAA for Firms
program closer to the firms it serves and in line with the President
Management Agenda. This change will not affect the structure of the 12
Trade Assistance Adjustment Centers (TAAC).
Under this structure, the TAACs will interact with new, more
locally-based EDA personnel, but the structure will not result in an
additional level of bureaucracy. In fact, the more robust program
delivery capability of EDA regional offices is expected to improve
EDA's overall administration of the TAA for Firms program.
EDA funding allocations for the TAACs for fiscal year 2003 were
calculated following the same methodology used in fiscal year 2002 and
previous years. EDA is presently working with the TAAC community to
establish a formalized and quantifiable funding formula that can be
replicated year-to-year, allocating funding based on various factors,
including TAAC performance levels. EDA has not yet proposed a funding
formula for 2004 and beyond. On March 5, 2003, EDA staff met with
representatives of the TAACs to seek input and to discuss possible
funding formulas. On May 29, 2003, the TAAC community responded with a
suggested funding formula, which EDA currently is considering. In
addition, some TAACs, including the Great Lakes TAAC (Ann Arbor, MI)
and the Western TAAC (Los Angeles, CA) expressed concerns about the
overall TAAC community's recommendations to EDA. These minority
opinions are also being considered by EDA. EDA intends to proceed with
the development of a formalized and quantifiable funding formula, in
consultation with the TAAC community, that will not only provide each
TAAC with a base level of funding but will also reward those TAACs with
the highest performance levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
TRADE AGREEMENTS--IMPACT ON SUGAR
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Administration has sought to move the
WTO and FTAA negotiations into a more serious phase, concluded
negotiations on free trade agreements (FTA's) with Chile and Singapore
and launched four new FTA negotiations--with Central America, Morocco,
the South Africa Customs Union, and Australia. And more such FTA
initiatives may be on the way.
I am concerned that negotiations pursued piecemeal, with inadequate
attention to industry-specific problems, as they seem now headed, could
bring disastrous results to American sugar beet and cane producers and
refiners.
Do you share my concern that inclusion of sugar trade provisions in
bilateral or regional trade agreements could leave the U.S. sugar
industry vulnerable to increased competition without opening European
and other consumer markets?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over
this issue and therefore is the appropriate agency to respond to this
question.
Question. Every other major sugar producing country excludes sugar
from their regional and bilateral trade agreements, even so-called
``free trade agreements.'' Why would the United States include
sensitive products like sugar in FTA's if other countries do not?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over
this issue and therefore is the appropriate agency to respond to this
question.
Question. Should trade in sugar therefore be addressed only in the
multilateral negotiations of the World Trade Organization (WTO)?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Commerce, primarily through its
International Trade Administration unit supports bilateral and multi-
lateral trade negotiations and monitors the results of signed trade
agreements. However, in relation to sugar trade issues the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction and therefore is the
appropriate agency to respond more fully to these questions.
Question. How do you plan to address other countries' policies
distorting trade in sugar, which create a ``dump'' in the market with
prices averaging barely half the world average cost of production for
the past two decades? Do you seek to impose restrictions on sugar
trade-distorting policies on developing and developed countries alike?
Answer. In general, the Department of Commerce is examining the
role of market distortions and their effect on trade in the context of
the Doha Round. We note that in their mandate for negotiations on Rules
in the Doha Round, the Trade Ministers included disciplines on ``trade-
distorting practices'' as an explicit area for further clarification
and improvement. Accordingly, the United States has addressed this
issue already in our submissions to the Rules Negotiating Group. For
example, in our October 22, 2002 Basic Concepts and Principles paper,
we noted that:
``A government's industrial policies or key aspects of the economic
system supported by government inaction can enable injurious dumping to
take place. Although these policies take on many different forms, they
can provide similar artificial advantages to producers. For instance,
these policies may allow producers to earn high profits in a home
`sanctuary market,' which may in turn allow them to sell abroad at an
artificially low price. Such practices can result in injury in the
importing country since domestic firms may not be able to match the
artificially low prices from producers in the sanctuary market.'' (TN/
RL/W/27, at 4)
We believe that addressing market- and trade-distorting practices
is essential to a rules-based multilateral trading system where U.S.
domestic producers and U.S. exporters can compete on a level playing
field, and we will press strongly throughout these negotiations for
strengthened disciplines in this area.
More specifically, the Department of Commerce vigorously enforces
the unfair trade laws, and has three outstanding antidumping duty
orders covering sugar from Belgium, France, and Germany. There is also
a countervailing duty order covering sugar from the European Community
in effect. As you know, our antidumping and countervailing duty laws
apply to developed and developing countries alike.
TRANSPARENCY IN TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Question. Representatives of American workers and industries report
that they have not been consulted or even briefed sufficiently on
ongoing trade negotiations, including Free Trade Agreements and the
U.S.-Mexico sweetener agreement. What measures are you taking to
improve transparency of trade negotiations with key American
constituencies?
Answer. Transparency throughout the negotiating process
significantly strengthens the ability of U.S. negotiators to craft
trade agreements that will benefit the U.S. economy. The Department of
Commerce makes every effort to consult with American constituencies
before, during, and after trade negotiations on all aspects of trade
negotiations in which the Department is involved. The U.S.-Mexico
sweetener agreement has been handled by the Department of Agriculture
and the U.S. Trade Representative.
At the launch of negotiations, and when major policy issues arise,
the Administration issues a Federal Register notice. After carefully
reviewing and cataloging the responses, we draw on this material to
inform our positions throughout the negotiation. We also participate in
public hearings to get additional input.
During the negotiations, Department staff regularly brief industry
groups on the status of trade negotiations. It is extremely important
to share as much information as possible, as early as possible, with
interested parties. One of the ways we seek private-sector input is
through the Industry Consultations Program, which is jointly
administered by Commerce and the United States Trade Representative,
and includes 21 industry sector and functional advisory committees and
approximately 345 industry executives as members.
We also brief other industry groups, associations, and individual
companies as requested. We coordinate with broad industry associations,
such as the National Association of Manufacturers, to seek input on
trade negotiations. Industry-specific trade specialists within the
Department's Trade Development Unit canvass their sectors for input
regarding all relevant policy decisions. Staff regularly draft material
that contributes to trade negotiation summaries which are posted on
USTR's public website. We also hold public hearings at important
junctures in negotiations so interested parties can hear first-hand
from the negotiators or from more senior U.S. officials how
negotiations are proceeding. The Department uses other avenues such as
World Trade Week and our export assistance centers to try to reach a
broad spectrum of interests.
After the negotiations are concluded, we prepare user-friendly
summaries and industry-by-industry reports that are posted on our web
site.
STEEL TARIFFS--WTO DECISION
Question. Are the temporary tariffs on steel, imposed under section
201 of the Trade Act, having the desired effect?
Answer. In March 2002, following a thorough U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC) investigation and after reviewing the ITC
recommendations, the President implemented the steel safeguard remedy
to provide the temporary relief the industry needed to facilitate the
adjustment and rationalization of the U.S. steel industry.
The U.S. steel industry has experienced an unprecedented level of
consolidation and restructuring, with additional consolidation likely
in the near future. The International Steel Group led the way by
acquiring and reorganizing the integrated production facilities of LTV
and Acme Steel and last month bought Bethlehem Steel. US Steel recently
acquired National Steel. These and other companies have negotiated more
flexible labor agreements that are expected to generate significant
cost savings. In the mini-mill sector, Nucor is investing heavily to
modernize the mills it purchased from Trico Steel and Birmingham Steel.
A number of smaller companies have closed and others have emerged from
bankruptcy, downsized and under new ownership.
Any decision regarding modification of the Section 201 remedy will
follow submission of the ITC's mid-term review to the President and
Congress on September 20, 2003. Our trade law requires the ITC to
prepare this report, which will document the efforts of the domestic
industry to adjust to import competition.
After the President receives the mid-term report, the statute gives
him greater authority to ``reduce, modify, or terminate'' the
safeguard. A decision under this authority will be taken by the
President, and we cannot prejudge what his decision may be.
Question. What progress has been achieved in reducing excess steel-
making capacity abroad?
Answer. Since September 2001, the steel initiative at the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has engaged
in a serious review of the world steel capacity situation in light of
the adverse impact on world steel markets from excess inefficient
capacity. To this end, the OECD established the Capacity Working Group
to examine approaches that could be used to monitor and encourage the
closure of inefficient excess capacity and restructuring developments
in the industry through market forces. The primary tool for the
Capacity Working Group is the periodic peer review of the reports from
the participating countries on their respective steel industry. These
reports describe capacity and production levels, likely closures and
new capacities. Information on significant legal and policy changes
that affect the steel making capacity are also contained in these
reports. The peer reviews are conducted at OECD among the participating
countries. When the governments present their reports, the
participating countries ask any questions they might have on the
reports. The purpose of the peer review to highlight any significant
problems related to inefficient excess capacities in the global steel
market.
As of May 2003, the participating countries have reported 107.07
million metric tons of crude steel capacity that have been closed
during 1998 to 2002. The United States accounts for approximately 14
million metric tons of this reduction. They also forecasted an
additional 29.00-35.60 millions of closures for the period of 2003-
2005. However, some countries are also estimating some increase in new
capacity or replacement of old capacity. On an aggregate level, we
expect 16.75-17.05 million metric tons of new capacity for 2003-2005.
Question. When can we expect to achieve a better balance between
steel-making capacity and global demand?
Answer. Global production and consumption of steel reached 902 and
812 million metric tons respectively in 2002. While analysts generally
agree that the figure for global capacity is about 1 billion metric
tons, there is no definitive number. In 2002, production and
consumption of steel products significantly increased from 2001, and
most of the increase in demand and production has been from China. In
some ways, the increase in demand for steel products in 2002 has
diminished the need to reduce capacity in many regions. For example,
there is no evidence that significant elimination of capacity or
decreases in production have taken place in Russia and Ukraine, both
countries which analysts cite as having significant amounts of
inefficient excess capacity. Similar to the situation in China, these
governments are reluctant to face the social cost of dismantling steel
mills in towns where the steel mills are the major employment source.
Meanwhile, we believe that Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Korea and India have
all increased exports to China in 2002. Many analysts wonder how long
China's growing economy will sustain this frantic pace of demand.
China, which became the largest steel importer in the world in 2002,
importing close to 30 million metric tons, is responsible for much of
the increase in worldwide demand. Without continued import demand from
China, countries that count on exports to sustain their production
levels might become sources of excess supply. The OECD Capacity Working
Group's peer review process will allow us to quickly detect excess
capacity. It is therefore difficult to predict when we can achieve a
better balance of capacity and demand. However, we do know that
eliminating subsidy and other market-distorting practices from the
world steel market is the key to permanently removing inefficient
excess capacity.
Question. Is the Administration prepared to continue the temporary
steel tariffs, for as long as necessary, even if the World Trade
Organization dispute settlement panel rules against the United States?
Answer. The United States disagrees with many of the WTO panel's
preliminary conclusions, but we are pleased that the panel rejected
some of the complainants' claims. The WTO dispute settlement process
regarding the steel safeguard measures is not yet complete, so it is
premature to discuss any response to the panel report. In the WTO
dispute settlement system, a report from either a panel or the
Appellate Body is not final unless formally adopted. The steel panel
report has not yet been publicly released in final form, and the appeal
has not even begun.
In the meantime, the steel safeguards measure will remain in place.
From the beginning, we planned to reduce the supplemental tariffs by
one-fifth each year. We made the first such reduction in March of this
year. The panel report does not affect this process.
Under our domestic safeguards laws, the International Trade
Commission issues a report on domestic producers' condition midway
through the term of a safeguard measure, which will occur toward the
end of September 2003 in the steel case. The President may reduce,
modify, or terminate a safeguard measure after receiving this report.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
BYRD AMENDMENT
Question. U.S. Trade Ambassador Zoellick assured me, personally,
and publicly, that the Bush Administration would defend the Byrd
Amendment against the case brought by our trade competitors before the
World Trade Organization. Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that the
Administration had recommended a repeal of the law in its fiscal year
2004 budget request. In fact the press apparently was notified by the
Administration of its intent to recommend a repeal of the Byrd
Amendment the day before the WTO Appellate Body issued its final
determination of the case.
Why would the Administration advise me and recipients of Byrd
Amendment funds across the nation that it strongly supported the Byrd
Amendment, if, at the same time, the Administration was planning to
request its repeal in the fiscal year 2004 budget?
Answer. The Administration vigorously defended the Byrd Amendment
at the WTO. Unfortunately, the WTO ruled against the United States on
this issue. The Administration continues to believe that the decision
on the Byrd Amendment (Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000) was not inconsistent with WTO rules.
We look forward to working with USTR, Treasury and Congress to
develop a response to the WTO's decision. We recognize that the
ultimate response to the WTO decision lies with Congress, and your
constitutional authority to determine whether, when, and in what way to
comply. There may be a number of ways in which U.S. law could be
amended to address the issues raised by the WTO Appellate Body without
sacrificing our goal of providing effective assistance to companies and
workers that have been injured by unfair trade.
Question. On February 4, 2003, I sent a letter to the President
signed by 70 Members of the U.S. Senate, urging the Administration to
negotiate a solution to the Appellate Body's ruling on the Byrd
Amendment, and to consult closely with the Congress on the particulars
of these negotiations. Obviously, there is no support in Congress for a
repeal of this law.
How does the Administration intend to resolve this issue in WTO
negotiations? When will the United States put this issue on the agenda
of the WTO negotiations?
Answer. The Office of the United States Trade Representative is the
agency primarily responsible for developing the U.S. agenda for these
negotiations. We would look forward to working with Congress in
crafting a strategy that would allow us to comply while at the same
time ensuring the effectiveness of our trade laws.
EMERGENCY STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Question. Last year, in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, the
Bush Administration recommended rescinding $96 million from the
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. In its fiscal year 2004 budget
request, the Administration again recommended rescinding whatever
monies for the program remained in the budget. Congress rightfully
rejected the Administration's recommendation for fiscal year 2003, and
I fully anticipate it will reject the Administration's recommendation
with respect to the fiscal year 2004 budget, as well.
How can the Administration continue to tell America's steelworkers
that it is doing all it can to support the U.S. steel industry on the
one hand, while, at the same time, seeking to eliminate this program?
Answer. Due to the lower than anticipated demand for steel loan
guarantees, the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program has been subject
to proposed rescissions in both fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004.
The Administration believes that this program has not been an effective
method of supporting the U.S. steel industry.
Question. What do you say to families like the 25,000 in the Ohio
River Valley, who, right now, are looking to the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Program to save their jobs and preserve their pensions?
Answer. The Emergency Loan Guarantee Board has approved, with
conditions, a loan guarantee for a loan amount of $250 million to
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, which is located in the Ohio
River Valley.
Question. Can you provide me with the names of any steel industry
consultants that were recommended by Bush Administration officials to
advise members of the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program about the
validity of the application submitted by Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel?
Answer. Bush Administration officials did not recommend steel
industry consultants to advise members of the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Board or loan program staff concerning the application
submitted by Royal Bank of Canada on behalf of Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corporation. The loan program staff chooses and retains steel
industry consultants to assist with review and analysis of applications
for loan guarantees. Choices are made based on factors such as specific
related prior experience, recommendations from third parties involved
in the steel industry, general reputation, satisfactory performance on
prior applications, and absence of conflicting relationships.
IMPORT MONITORING PROGRAM
Question. What is the Administration's position regarding
instituting a program to monitor surges of all [steel] imports into the
United States, not just those steel imports that were originally
subject to the 201 investigation of steel products? If the
Administration will not support such an import monitoring program, why
not?
Answer. The Administration currently monitors steel imports through
two steel import monitoring programs administered by the Department of
Commerce's Import Administration. These two import monitoring programs
differ in scope of coverage and source of information.
One program, which was instituted as part of the safeguard remedy,
applies only to products subject to the safeguard, and draws upon
aggregate information collected from proprietary information reported
on steel import licenses. Information on these imports is collected and
reported by product category and country of origin. The primary purpose
of this program is to provide early identification of import surges,
particularly those from excluded developing countries, that could
undermine the relief provided to the industry by the President.
The other steel import monitoring program, which is much broader in
scope, covers all imports of steel mill products. This monitoring
program was established prior to the safeguard remedy, and is based on
the early release of steel import data collected by the Census Bureau.
It has been expanded over the past year to provide detailed monthly
statistical information on steel imports including import quantity,
value and unit values. This early release data is the most timely and
reliable monthly data available on U.S. steel imports and is issued
roughly three weeks after the close of the import month. Import volume
and value data are collected and reported by AISI category as well as
section 201 remedy category and by country of origin.
To increase the usefulness of the monitoring programs, detailed
information on steel imports compiled from both steel import monitoring
programs is available to interested members of the domestic steel
industry, government and public through the steel import monitoring
website--www.ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/license/. The data is reviewed
continuously and is updated on a regular basis--the day of release for
monthly Census import data; each week for import license data.
Expansion of the current import monitoring programs, particularly
the extension of the licensing requirement to products beyond the scope
of the section 201 remedies, would require additional authorizing
legislation. Depending upon the scope of the expansion and the number
of new product categories and additional Harmonized Tariff Schedule's
(HTS) to be added to the system, the expanded monitoring system could
entail a considerable outlay of new resources, particularly if the same
level of detailed reporting is to be maintained.
Currently, more than 25,000 licenses are issued each month and the
website generates approximately 7,000-8,000 tables and graphs which
must be reviewed and updated each week. Expansion to all steel mill
products would more than double the number of licenses. The number of
covered tariff numbers would almost triple and depending upon the
number of steel categories added, the number of tables and graphs would
likely triple as well. This is far beyond the capabilities of the
existing database and monitoring program and would likely cause a
decrease in service, timeliness and/or accuracy. Expansion to all
tariff numbers in HTS Chapters 72 and 73 would greatly increase the
number of licenses, covered tariff numbers and reported product
categories and further tax the system.
201 MID-TERM REVIEW
Question. The ITC has begun its mid-term review of the remedies
that were imposed last year on imported steel under section 201. What
criteria will the Bush Administration use to decide whether to lift the
tariffs and other remedies that were imposed as a result of last year's
investigation under section 201? Does the Administration plan to base
its decision this fall on information gathered by the ITC during mid-
term review, and on advice offered by the entities referenced in 19
U.S.C. section 2254, or on additional input, including extraneous
comments submitted to the White House, or the U.S. Commerce Department,
by foreign countries or foreign exporters, or by U.S. importers of
steel products otherwise subject to the 201?
What impact will foreign policy concerns have on the
Administration's decision in this respect?
Answer. The President implemented the steel safeguard remedy to
provide the temporary relief needed to facilitate the adjustment and
rationalization of the U.S. steel industry. Since the implementation of
the steel safeguard remedy, the U.S. steel industry has experienced an
unprecedentedly high level of consolidation and restructuring, with
additional consolidation likely in the near future.
As required by section 201, the International Trade Commission
(ITC) recently initiated a mid-term review of the effectiveness of the
steel safeguard remedy and the restructuring efforts undertaken by the
industry. The ITC will collect information from a broad range of U.S.
steel producers, foreign steel producers, and steel importers. Based on
a request from the House Ways and Means Committee, the ITC will also
review the impact of the safeguard remedies on steel consumers. The ITC
will issue its report to the President in September.
The President may reduce, modify or terminate the section 201
remedies imposed in March 2002; he may also leave the measures
unchanged. In accordance with the statute, the President will take into
account the report and advice of the ITC, as well as the advice of the
Secretaries of Commerce and Labor, in reaching a decision under section
204. In addition, the President may consult with the House Ways and
Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee.
However, the statute does not limit the President to consider only
these sources in his decision. As it does in every section 201
proceeding, the Administration will consider any information that is
potentially relevant to an evaluation of the statutory factors,
including information or advice from members of Congress, U.S. steel
producers, U.S. steel consumers, U.S. importers and other interested
parties. The Administration will also consider any information
presented to it by foreign governments or foreign parties that is
relevant to the inquiry under section 204.
DEDUCTING 201 DUTIES FROM AD/CVD MARGINS
Question. In a recent case, the Department considered but made no
final determination regarding whether to deduct from the U.S. price of
a dumped or countervailable product the amount of 201 duties that had
already been imposed on an imported steel product. 201 duties reflect a
decision by the President to increase normal customs duties,
temporarily, and such duties can be deducted from the U.S. price in
determining the margin in an antidumping or countervailing duty case.
What is the Department's position concerning the deduction of 201
duties from U.S. price in determining the margin in an antidumping or
countervailing duty case?
Answer. To date we have not made a decision concerning this
important issue. We intend to address it in the context of upcoming
antidumping case decisions after we have received comments from
interested parties.
The issue of how to treat section 201 duties in our dumping margin
calculations was raised in the final weeks of our statutory time period
in our recent investigation on steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago.
In that case, the foreign respondent, the domestic producers and the
United Steelworkers of America submitted comments on this issue, but
the domestic producers and the United Steelworkers of America requested
that the Department allow more time for broader comment on this far-
reaching policy determination. Since the adjustment in the steel wire
rod from Trinidad and Tobago case would have had an insignificant
effect, we did not address the treatment of section 201 duties in that
case.
We have a few cases currently pending in which this issue has been
raised. We are allowing all interested parties to comment fully on this
issue, including parties not involved in these specific proceedings. We
will carefully consider all comments before reaching a decision.
IMPORT ADMINISTRATION
Question. My office has been advised that the Office of Policy
within the Department's Office of Import Administration has been
steadily expanding over the past several years. There is a concern that
available resources within Import Administration are being diverted to
the Office of Policy at the expense of the other offices within Import
Administration that actually conduct the antidumping and countervailing
duty investigations and administrative reviews. Could you please
provide me with detailed information how the Office of Policy within
Import Administration has expanded over the past five years? And for
what purpose?
Answer. At no time has the Office of Policy been expanded at the
expense of the Operations offices. With the additional fiscal year 2001
funding, management also increased the funding of the three Operations
offices within IA that conduct AD/CVD cases. The growth of the Office
of Policy resulted directly from increases in the annual
appropriations, and represents a conscious decision of both the
Executive and Legislative branches during the past two Administrations
to develop tools for supporting and supplementing the enforcement of
U.S. trade laws to address foreign unfair trade practices. There were
no reductions in the budgets of the Operations during this period for
the purpose of expanding the Office of Policy, nor was funding diverted
to support Office of Policy growth.
IMPORT ADMINISTRATION STAFFING OFFICE OF POLICY VS. OPERATIONS OFFICES
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAS Groups
Fiscal Year Policy (I, II,
III)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999.......................................... 27 222
2000.......................................... 27 222
2001.......................................... 55 222
2002.......................................... 65 \1\ 222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include miscellaneous overhires to work on steel issues.
(Source: IA Staffing Plans).
During the past five years, IA received two budget increases
through the annual appropriations process in fiscal year 1999 and
fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included a funding
increase for IA to conduct new AD/CVD program activities set forth in
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). IA management directed the
Office of Policy to assume responsibility for the new activities
described below.
--AD/CVD Sunset Reviews
--Subsidies Enforcement
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation included a funding increase to
support the Trade Compliance Initiative (TCI) first proposed by the
Clinton Administration and subsequently supported by the Bush
Administration. IA's new TCI program activities were assigned to the
Office of Policy and included the following new activities:
--Overseas Compliance Program
--China Trade Compliance and Japan Trade Compliance
--Import Surge Monitoring, Expedited Investigations & Subsidies
Enforcement
--IA Senior Official Stationed in Geneva, Switzerland.
In particular, a significant portion of these funds and increased
staffing were used to support Import Administration's increasing
activity on three fronts--(1) steel issues, (2) pre-petition support to
potential users of the AD/CVD laws, and (3) WTO negotiations on rules.
Of the new policy analysts hired in the past two years, more than half
have been dedicated to these new areas.
IMPORT ADMINISTRATION: CUSTOMS INSTRUCTIONS
Question. I learned of possibly misallocated resources when my
office was advised that certain companies have been unable to obtain
funds from the special accounts that have been established at the
Treasury Department under the Byrd Amendment. It is my understanding
that certain companies cannot access funds in the relevant accounts
because investigators in Import Administration have been too short-
staffed to send necessary instructions regarding certain cases to the
U.S. Customs Service. Consequently, some U.S. companies that have been
eligible to receive funds under the Byrd Amendment have been told by
Customs that there is simply no money in relevant accounts at the U.S.
Treasury Department. Are you aware of this problem and can you tell me
whether there has been any effort by the Department to address this
issue?
Answer. As explained below, it is true that, in some instances,
there has been a delay at the Department of Commerce in issuing
liquidation instructions. It should be understood, however, that the
DOC does not maintain the special accounts established under the Byrd
Amendment and cannot, therefore, speak to the reason(s) why any
particular claimant has been unable to receive distributions.
DOC conducts administrative reviews of antidumping (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) orders where a request for review is timely
filed by an appropriate interested party. If a review is initiated, the
entries covered by the review remain suspended until the Department
completes the review (typically 12 to 18 months from initiation). If
the Department's final results are not challenged (in either the Court
of International Trade or NAFTA), Import Administration issues
liquidation instructions, whenever possible, within 15 days of the
issuance of the final results of the administrative review. However, if
parties challenge our final results and obtain an injunction against
liquidation of the entries covered by the review, those entries will be
suspended until the litigation is resolved. If the Department does not
receive a request for administrative review, or if a review request
covers only entries from certain producers/exporters, the Department
advises the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (BCBP) to liquidate the entries for which a review
was not requested.
The Department's liquidation instructions indicate to the BCBP how
much in the way of special duties to assess on entries of merchandise
subject to an AD and/or CVD order. BCBP then assesses duties on the
entries and places the proceeds in special accounts pursuant to the
Byrd Amendment. When claims are made for the funds in the special
accounts, BCBP determines whether--and to what degree--the claims will
be satisfied.
The Department takes a proactive approach to ensure that
liquidation instructions are properly issued. Despite these efforts,
given the sheer volume of cases and instructions that must be issued by
the Department to the BCBP, there may be instances where entries have
inadvertently not been liquidated. Typically, the Department is
notified of these instances by the BCBP or private parties (such as the
domestic producer or the U.S. importer). Import Administration makes
every effort to work with parties and the BCBP to identify the problem,
and to address it as expeditiously as possible. We closely monitor the
accuracy and the timeliness of our issuance of instructions to BCBP and
immediately address any problem that we identify or is brought to our
attention. We are not aware of any instances in which customs
instructions were not sent due to staffing issues.
Finally, we note that, to address concerns that there had been
significant delays in the issuance of liquidation instructions in
certain cases, the Department conducted a review of all completed
proceedings to ensure that BCBP has been issued appropriate
instructions. Import Administration officials reviewed more than 200
final decisions in the course of this project, which took several years
to complete. As a result, the Department ensured that all liquidation
instructions had been issued for all entries subject to the orders/
findings involved.
VALIDITY OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR PATENT SEARCH
Question. Why does the PTO trust that an outside contractor with no
relevant patent experience would conduct a valid patent search in the
same thorough and learned manner as a patent examiner with years of
experience?
Answer. The USPTO is confident that a certified outside contractor
can conduct a valid patent search in the same thorough manner as an
experienced patent examiner. The USPTO's decision to split the search
and examination functions--a key component of the 21st Century
Strategic Plan--is not an unprecedented or untested approach. The USPTO
and its sister patent offices throughout the world have considerable
experience in splitting the two tasks of search and examination. For
example, search and examination have been separated within the European
Patent Office (EPO) for more than twenty years without any detriment to
quality. Indeed, search quality will actually improve under a
Contractor Search Service (CSS) system, as the examiner will be acting
as a second pair of eyes relative to the search contractors.
The USPTO will provide detailed search guidelines and quality
measures to ensure the quality and uniformity of prior art searches
performed by a CSS. Prior to contract award, all offerors will be
evaluated to ascertain the technical background and skills of their
employees and their abilities to provide a high quality search.
The USPTO plans to have multiple levels of Quality Control/Review
and will promptly terminate its contract with any provider whose
searches and search reports do not meet the standards. Furthermore,
patent examiners can always request a further search or perform a
supplemental search with approval of their supervisor if the examiner
feels the search supplied is inadequate.
With these quality assurance measures, there should be no adverse
effects on the presumption of validity or the public confidence in
patents. In fact, this collaborative effort in prior art searching will
improve both efficiency and substantive focus in the preparation,
examination, and prosecution of patent applications in a more cost
effective and expeditious manner. It will, with the implementation of
the quality measures outlined in the 21st Century Strategic Plan,
strengthen the validity of patents, thus providing a more substantive
and valuable end product for our customers.
COST OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR PATENT SEARCH
Question. Why is the PTO not concerned that outsourcing this
function could increase, rather than a decrease agency costs?
Answer. The USPTO believes that, overall, it will be cost effective
to competitively source patent searches. The USPTO has been criticized
for ``hiring its way out'' of its growing patent workload problem. For
example, in 2002 the Senate Appropriations Committee stated, ``PTO
management has not been sufficiently innovative. Although patent
filings have increased dramatically over the past decade, PTO
management chose to remain wedded to an archaic patent process and
attempted to hire its way out of its workload problems.''
Competitive sourcing of searches is part of the USPTO's effort to
address incoming work and an inventory of pending applications by
allowing patent examiners to concentrate on patentability
determinations rather than spending time on searching. The removal of
search functions will allow examiners to process more patent
applications, assisting the USPTO in lowering pendency and reducing
backlogged applications.
Competitive-sourcing of the search will be validated by a proof of
concept before we proceed to full implementation.
RELIABILITY OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR PATENT SEARCH
Question. How does the PTO plan to address the issue that searches
conducted by an outside firm could prove faulty or unreliable and, as a
result, could undermine the validity of patents issued by the PTO?
Answer. In addition to the steps outlined in response to the
question above regarding confidence in contractor abilities to conduct
prior art searches, the USPTO has benchmarked models that other
intellectual property organizations have used for many years. For
example:
--The Japan Patent Office (JPO) also has experience in splitting the
two tasks of search and examination. The Japanese government
established the Industrial Property Cooperation Center (IPCC)
in 1985 for such purposes as providing search reports on patent
applications pending before the JPO, indexing patents according
to the F-term classification scheme used by the JPO, and
assigning classifications to patents according to the
International Patent Classification system. Since then, more
than one million prior art searches have been conducted by IPCC
for JPO's patent examiners and more than two million F-term
assignments have been made to JPO's searchable database. The
IPCC is now staffed with about 1,100 engineers, only 40 of whom
were previously employed as patent examiners. Based on such an
extensive base of empirical data, together with on-site
benchmarking reviews that have been conducted with JPO
officials over the past decade, we have no doubt that searches
can be done with high quality by experienced and skilled
engineers.
--Closer to home, the USPTO has allowed examiners to elect the
services of searchers to search non-patent literature and
foreign patents in the Office's Electronic Information Centers
for the last decade. Thus far this year, examiners have
requested 13,011 searches. These searches are conducted by
contract staff or Government employees who have extensive
knowledge of the database content, search strategy formulation,
and command language of several commercial online providers,
such as Dialog and Lexis-Nexis. They also have knowledge of
internal search systems, such as the Examiner's Automated
Search Tool (EAST) and the Web-based Examiner Search Tool
(WEST), and are adept at searching the Internet.
--The European Patent Office (EPO) serves as another benchmark. The
EPO has extensive experience that clearly demonstrates that a
high quality search can be generated by someone other than the
substantive patent examiner with no diminution in the quality
of the patentability determination or the patent examiner's
ability to keep current with his or her understanding of, or
currency with, the technology and/or state of the art. Since
1978, EPO searchers in The Hague and Berlin (and more recently,
Munich) produced almost 1.8 million searches of which half were
for EPO's substantive patent examiners in Munich. In fact, the
USPTO has already received more than 75,000 patent search
reports from the EPO over the past few years pursuant to the
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). While that is not a direct
``contractor'' model, conceptually there is virtually no
difference with the IPCC model described earlier.
The EPO, where the search was carried out by an examiner in The
Hague or Berlin and the examination was conducted by a three-man
examining division in Munich, currently is moving towards combining the
search and examination functions to improve productivity, not because
there are quality issues associated with the separation of search and
examination. Survey data collected from U.S. patent attorneys over the
past five years show that the EPO's searches and patentability
decisions are consistently of high quality.
As Director Rogan explained in his April 3, 2003, testimony before
the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet
and Intellectual Property, the USPTO and its sister patent offices
throughout the world have considerable experience in splitting the two
tasks of search and examination, as described above. Contrary to the
assertion that quality suffers under such a structure, the reverse is
true. During the hearing, Director Rogan entered into the record a
letter from the President of the EPO, Dr. Ingo Kober, which discusses
Europe's experience in this area. See attachment.
While the EPO does not competitively source the search function,
search and examination have been separated within the EPO for more than
twenty years without any detriment to quality.
For firms that would like to offer search services, the USPTO will
follow the Federal procurement process to enter into contractual
arrangements with them. The USPTO would maintain the authority to
certify that a private firm, individual, or commercial entity was
capable of providing a valid, thorough, and complete search of the
prior art for patent examination processes.
[ATTACHMENT--EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE LETTER]
March 4, 2003.
Mr. James E. Rogan,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2121 Crystal
Drive, Suite 906, Arlington, VA 22202 USA.
Dear Mr. Rogan, I understand that some organisations and
individuals in the United States have recently expressed certain
misconceptions concerning a program of the European Patent Office,
namely, Bringing Examination and Search Together or BEST. I would like
to clarify some basic facts about this program to ensure it is properly
understood.
Any characterisation that the European Patent Office chose to
``adopt'' the American system of searching and examining patent
applications is simply not true. Our decision to combine the search and
examination functions was based on the need to increase examiner
productivity. As you know, these changes occurred during a time of
transition to a more automated environment and a significant expansion
of our staff.
Indeed, the previous arrangement was initially dictated by
historical and geographical reasons which no longer apply. However,
this separate search and examination program, where the search was
carried out by an examiner in The Hague or Berlin and the examination
was conducted by a three-man examining division in Munich, produced
high quality results and served us very well over a period of more than
25 years. In fact, feedback we have received from our interested
circles has consistently indicated high satisfaction levels with our
searches.
Finally, all major industrial property offices in the world
currently confront a workload crisis that demands creative solutions.
That is why I agreed to sign a bilateral record of discussion with you
to explore the potential of exploiting searches generated by our
respective Offices for counterpart patent applications. I am convinced
that this will help improve patent quality, increase efficiency and
productivity, and reduce operating costs.
It is unfortunate that recent statements made by commentators on
the EPO's current and future plans as well as on the USPTO's plans have
characterised our processes as diverging, when in fact they are indeed
converging.
Should you wish further clarification of my views on this matter, I
shall be glad to provide additional details.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. H.C. Ingo Kober,
President.
VALIDITY OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR PATENT SEARCH
Question. Why does the PTO trust that an outside contractor with no
relevant patent experience would conduct a valid patent search in the
same thorough and learned manner as a patent examiner with years of
experience?
Answer. The USPTO is confident that a certified outside contractor
can conduct a valid patent search in the same thorough manner as an
experienced patent examiner. The USPTO's decision to split the search
and examination functions--a key component of the 21st Century
Strategic Plan--is not an unprecedented or untested approach. The USPTO
and its sister patent offices throughout the world have considerable
experience in splitting the two tasks of search and examination. For
example, search and examination have been separated within the European
Patent Office (EPO) for more than twenty years without any detriment to
quality. Indeed, search quality will actually improve under a
Contractor Search Service (CSS) system, as the examiner will be acting
as a second pair of eyes relative to the search contractors.
The USPTO will provide detailed search guidelines and quality
measures to ensure the quality and uniformity of prior art searches
performed by a CSS. Prior to contract award, all offerors will be
evaluated to ascertain the technical background and skills of their
employees and their abilities to provide a high quality search.
The USPTO plans to have multiple levels of Quality Control/Review
and will promptly terminate its contract with any provider whose
searches and search reports do not meet the standards. Furthermore,
patent examiners can always request a further search or perform a
supplemental search with approval of their supervisor if the examiner
feels the search supplied is inadequate.
With these quality assurance measures, there should be no adverse
effects on the presumption of validity or the public confidence in
patents. In fact, this collaborative effort in prior art searching will
improve both efficiency and substantive focus in the preparation,
examination, and prosecution of patent applications in a more cost
effective and expeditious manner. It will, with the implementation of
the quality measures outlined in the 21st Century Strategic Plan,
strengthen the validity of patents, thus providing a more substantive
and valuable end product for our customers.
PILOT OF OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR PATENT SEARCH
Question. If the PTO plans to test these searches in some sort of
``pilot program,'' what assurances are there that such a pilot program
will actually be undertaken? How will the PTO measure success? Who will
measure success? Will the Congress be involved?
Answer. To meet the requirements of their customers and to
determine the feasibility of competitively sourcing search functions,
the USPTO will implement a proof of concept through a pilot program.
The Office will assure quality of contractor performance through
continuous monitoring of the pilot and the conduct of a formal
evaluation. The planned proof of concept will be widely vetted with
USPTO's key stakeholders and the Patent Public Advisory Committee. The
results of the pilot will also be widely shared. USPTO will conduct a
formal review of the pilot prior to making a final decision as to
whether or not to proceed with full implementation. The Congress will
be kept informed throughout the process. Although the specifics of the
pilot and evaluation have not been finalized, the USPTO is considering
using an outside contractor to validate the quality of the searches.
The USPTO already has obtained public comment on its plans and
posted on its website for many months the answers to questions or
suggestions they have received from the public, patent examiners, and
the professional associations with whom it has worked extensively. The
Office recently published on its website a detailed action plan which
describes the implementation approach. What follows are the highlights
of the administrative structure and processes USPTO is fully prepared
to implement, including a description of the proof of concept.
The USPTO will use the contractors to prepare complete and accurate
search reports for patent applications. One or more contracts would be
awarded. It is anticipated that there will be at least one contract
specializing in each discipline. The contractor may be a private or
commercial search entity with demonstrated expertise and search skills.
The request for a search and the resulting search report are activities
between the USPTO and the contractor.
The USPTO would administer the same preliminary processing
procedures currently established for new application filings. A copy of
the application would be forwarded to the contractor approximately
three months prior to the examination. The contractor would perform a
prior art search and prepare a report using Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT) guidelines and USPTO search guidelines for additional non-patent
literature (NPL) resources as stated above.
Upon completion of the report, the application would be forwarded
to the Patent Technology Center to await review by the examiner. The
examiner would then review the report and prior art cited. If the
report was inadequate or if the examiner was personally aware of other
prior art, the examiner could request time to search them, or have the
report sent back to the contractor with an explanation of the
deficiency and a request for supplemental information.
The USPTO would maintain the authority to certify that a private
firm, individual, or commercial entity was capable of providing a
valid, thorough, and complete search of the prior art for patent
examination processes. A certification process would be done at the
USPTO. The process could be given to firms or individuals or a
combination thereof. The certification process may be based on industry
specific criteria and be given on an individual basis based on the
firm's or individual's qualifications. Similar to the Primary Examiner
at the USPTO, a senior member of the firm could sign off on an
``assistant's'' search. Thus, while there are multiple options
available, a preferred one would be to certify the ``firm'' which, in
turn, would be responsible for certifying their individual searchers.
The critical measures of success would be determined based on the
contractors' ability to: (1) determine if disclosed invention is
subject to an international search; (2) identify a field of search that
would cover the disclosed invention; (3) select the proper tools and
art collections to perform the search; (4) determine the appropriate
search strategy for each of the selected search tools and art
collections; (5) search the art collections using the selected search
tools and search strategy, and using any additional strategy suggested
by the art that is found; (6) retrieve sufficient information from art
that is identified during the search to evaluate the pertinence of the
art; (7) select the prior art that is most pertinent to the claimed
subject matter; (8) record the results of the art that is selected
according to the criteria set forth in the guidelines; and (9)
determine if certain claims are found to be searchable subject matter
and/or lack clarity or distinctness.
The contractor would have to prove that it has ready access to the
appropriate industry-specific search tools. Much of the work in
developing industry-specific search tools is either in the process of
being done or has already been published on the USPTO intranet in the
form of Search Guidelines. These guidelines were developed by Quality
Action Teams and represent a listing of appropriate search tools and
databases for each technology. The guidelines include PCT Minimum
Document requirements, appropriate text search systems, as well as the
pertinent commercially available databases. In addition to using the
established guidelines, a classified search using the U.S. Patent
Classification (USPC) system would also need to be performed, if
appropriate.
Another requirement would be the technical qualifications of the
contractors' staff. Just as in examining, varying levels of technical
expertise are required for searching different technologies. In
addition, the contractor would have to provide proof of a thorough
understanding of the patent examining procedures and patent statutes.
It is essential that any contractor have the ability to read and
analyze claims, as well as broadly apply the prior art to produce a
PCT-type search report, which would be submitted to USPTO. The
contractor would need to be aware of patent law and practice and be
able to understand such concepts as ``motivation'' for example. This
could be ensured through testing requirements. Finally, the
contractors' ability to provide timely reports would be essential to
the program's success. Special attention would be paid to ensure treaty
deadlines were enforced.
For proper examination and quality comparisons, a search submission
would be expected to include, at a minimum, a listing for every search
including: (1) text search systems; (2) commercial databases; (3) USPC
classified search, if appropriate; (4) the complete search statement
and logic; and (5) a statement regarding the teachings and
applicability of each reference against each claim.
The USPTO also would have to maintain a ``search quality review
process'' in order to ``sample'' the quality of searches submitted by
the certified search authorities. A component of the in-process review
activity is to evaluate the quality of the search results for each
contractor. A statistically valid sample of cases would be reviewed
using criteria such as whether the search was based on what is claimed
and reasonably expected to be claimed. Additionally, an experienced
examiner will conduct a separate search on the same application, to
ensure the contractor used the proper search procedures.
The Office would retain the ability to terminate any contract and
``de-certify'' authorities that submit a number of poor searches from
either the test sample or from other sources such as examiner reports,
requests for re-examination or post-grant opposition that show clear
errors.
It is possible that separate contractor support would be needed to
set up, implement, and maintain the necessary certification procedures,
along with a dedicated staff of search and examination experts.
Contractors may be required to supply certified translations or
English language equivalents, with valid dates, for any non-English
language prior art references cited, which would also eliminate the
need for examiners requesting certified translations, partial
translations and/or on-the-spot translations of non-English documents.
Proof of Concept: The USPTO recognizes that the use of contractors
to provide prior art search and/or opinion reports for patent
applications is a major change to current patent examination processes.
The USPTO also understands customer concerns for excellence in a prior
art search. To ensure quality art searches are maintained and that
there is uninterrupted service to all USPTO customers, the Office would
use the results of the PCT pilot as its foundation for competitively
sourcing all other search activities within the Office. By using the
pilot study, the USPTO will be able to assess accurately the
feasibility of competitively sourcing prior art searches. Performance
and product will be reviewed to ensure the highest quality is
maintained, using both an in-process review procedure and separate
searches performed by experienced examiners.
The PCT competitive sourcing pilot will be implemented in multiple
arts to ensure the contractors can provide a quality search report for
any technology. Between three and six different art areas, all with
generally high backlogs, would be selected as pilot areas. The results
of the PCT pilot will provide the Office with the information necessary
to implement the best possible transition from examiner searches to
contractor searches. Prior to full-scale implementation, a final report
would be developed that identifies the strengths, weaknesses, costs and
benefits. This report would be published and made available for general
review prior to a decision on whether to further implement competitive-
sourcing in other areas of the Office.
There would be multiple evaluations of the search and reports
prepared by the contractors. Examiners would complete an evaluation
every time a contracted search is used in the examination of a U.S.
application. There would also be independent evaluations both during
in-process reviews, and by independent third parties (similar to a
quality review of the examination). Failure of a contractor to maintain
the high quality expectations could result in the ``forfeit'' of the
contract to the contractor.
Regarding the costs of the commercial search, the USPTO's
stakeholders' view is that quality has not been properly emphasized in
recent years. Accordingly, the USPTO has listened to patent applicants
and the consistent message they have conveyed is that quality must be
improved and the cost of improving quality is something for which they
are prepared to pay.
STOPPING PILOT OF COMPETITIVE-SOURCING
Question. Is there any certainty that the outsourcing will stop if
the pilot program proves that the experiment is not working?
Answer. Yes. First, the planned proof of concept will be vetted in
advance with the USPTO's key stakeholders and the Patent Public
Advisory Committee.
Second, the USPTO has committed to developing a final report
documenting the strengths, weaknesses, costs and benefits. The report
will be published and made available for general review prior to a
decision on whether to implement further competitive-sourcing.
The final decision to implement further competitive-sourcing will
rest with the Director, based on the recommendation of the Management
Council, which is chaired by the Deputy Director and comprised of
senior managers from all USPTO divisions. The Management Council has
responsibility for monitoring implementation of the 21st Century
Strategic Plan. Once the proof of concept has been completed and the
results documented, the Management Council will be responsible for
making a final recommendation to the Director.
SEARCH CONTRACTORS OWNING PATENTS
Question. Finally, what safeguards are in place to make sure that
the contractors who are chosen to conduct these patent searches do not,
themselves, have a financial stake in the patent system?
Currently, by law, patent examiners may not own patents with narrow
exceptions such as by inheritance. Will the PTO likewise bar search
contractors from owning patents?
Answer. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (``FAR''), 48 C.F.R.
9.5 et seq., provides guidance and prescribes responsibilities and
procedures for identifying, evaluating and resolving organizational
conflicts of interest (``OCOI''). In particular, FAR 9.504 requires
the contracting officer, before issuing a solicitation, to prepare an
analysis and a recommendation for avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating
organizational conflicts of interest. Pursuant to this guidance, the
USPTO is presently considering various plans and methods to avoid and
neutralize actual and potential OCOIs that may occur as a result of
contracting out patent search services. At a minimum, the USPTO will
require patent search firms not only to disclose actual or potential
OCOIs, such as past or present associations with major patent
application filers, but also to submit suitable OCOI mitigation plans
as an integral part of the evaluation of proposals to conduct patent
search services. PTO will also seek to ensure that any personal
conflicts of interest by employees of the search firms are minimized to
the maximum extent practicable. The USPTO plans to award multiple
contracts to fulfill its needs and require that all applicable OCOI
requirements flow-down to any subcontractors and employees as well.
The USPTO will include in all solicitations and contracts for
patent search services clauses that: (1) invite the offerors' attention
to FAR part 9.5; (2) state the nature of the OCOI or potential OCOI;
(3) require the prompt disclosure of actual and potential OCOIs; and
(4) state the proposed remedies available to the government upon
discovery of an OCOI. As part of the procurement process, the Office
also plans to solicit comments and suggestions on how the Agency can
best mitigate actual or potential OCOIs.
The USPTO also plans to include in its contracts for patent search
services clauses which reference 35 U.S.C. 122 and prohibit the
disclosure of information contained in patent applications as well as
requirements to safeguard patent applicants' proprietary and trade
secret information.
Although the USPTO has not yet made a decision to impose a total
ban on the ownership of patents, if ownership of patents creates an
impermissible organizational or personal conflict of interest, which
cannot be neutralized or mitigated, the USPTO may disqualify that firm
from competing for the search contracts. In addition, the USPTO may
structure the resulting contracts to allow for termination of the
contracts for impermissible conflicts of interest.
As described above, the USPTO fully intends to obtain early
exchanges of information from all interested parties through a variety
of means, such as additional Requests for Information or draft
solicitations, to determine whether a total ban on the ownership of
patents will be required from search firms. Further, on May 22, 2003,
the USPTO will be holding an ``Industry Day,'' a vendor conference
whereby USPTO will be showcasing existing and new agency initiatives.
During Industry Day, the Office will be soliciting comments regarding
the initiatives from vendors who conduct or will conduct business with
the USPTO. The Office will include the issue of OCOI among search firms
as a topic for discussion at that time.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., Thursday, March 20, 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 2004
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, Campbell,
Hollings, and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. Welcome to this hearing. Senator Hollings is
headed in this direction. It was kind of the Attorney General
to arrive early, which we appreciate. And we thank him for
that.
This is obviously a time of acute sensitivities on a lot of
issues. And we appreciate the Attorney General taking time out
of his day to testify before the Appropriations Committee which
has jurisdiction over the Justice Department. We also have
jurisdiction over the Commerce Department, State Department,
Judiciary, and a variety of independent agencies. But the
Justice Department is the largest account in this
subcommittee's jurisdiction and one of the most complicated.
There is a lot going on that deals with the question of our
national security and how we protect Americans and America. The
Attorney General is at the center of that.
So rather than my going on for an extended period of time
about those concerns, we would like to hear from the Attorney
General. And then we will proceed with questions.
Mr. Attorney General.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPENING STATEMENT
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you very much. Good
morning, Chairman Gregg and members of the subcommittee.
We are at war. And I know that as we watch the events
unfolding overseas, that our thoughts and prayers are with the
young men and women who are defending our freedom. We pray also
for the families who have lost loved ones or whose loved ones
have been captured or are missing in action or wounded. Their
efforts in the defense of freedom, which is a noble, if not the
most noble of causes, will never be forgotten. We will honor
their sacrifice with an ever-vigilant commitment to our war on
terrorism.
Indeed, the first and overriding priority of this budget
and of the Department is to protect America from acts of
terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. I am pleased to be
here to present the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Department of Justice. I thank you for your continued
assistance in providing the Department of Justice with the
resources to detect, disrupt, and dismantle terrorist activity.
IRAQI TASK FORCE PLAN
The Justice Department's terrorism prevention efforts have
included planning for the possibility of intensified conflict
with Iraq. Last spring, the FBI began developing an action plan
to address any related threats that might face us in the event
of this intensification of the conflict. An Iraqi Task Force
Plan was developed, in addition to the integrated prevention
security framework put in place after September 11, 2001. The
Iraqi Task Force Plan includes: around-the-clock operations at
FBI headquarters and field offices, since the escalation of
hostilities with Iraq and outreach to Middle Eastern and
Islamic communities in the United States. The plan includes an
analysis of prior cases involving Iraq and/or supporters of
Iraq to identify potential intelligence targets or persons of
interest. The plan includes stepped-up monitoring of
individuals suspected of links to the Iraqi hostile forces or
other terrorist organizations. The plan also includes voluntary
interviews of 11,000 U.S.-based Iraqis to obtain
counterterrorism information and intelligence information, as
well as to identify any backlash threats to Iraqis in the
United States. When I say backlash threats, I mean that we do
not want Iraqi individuals in the United States to be the
subject of discrimination, intimidation, harassment, or
injustice. Those individuals of Iraqi origin are entitled to
the same kind of security, freedom, and liberty as are other
citizens in the United States. The voluntary interviews include
inquiries about whether or not their well-being has been
threatened.
We appreciate the valuable information we have gained from
the voluntary interviews and the cooperation of the Iraqi
community in the United States. This cooperation has assisted
us in our efforts in Iraq, as well as in our own domestic
antiterrorism efforts. We have gathered intelligence about such
things as Iraqi bunkers, tunnel systems, telecommunications
networks, manufacturing plants, and Iraqi military officials.
This information is being shared and analyzed by our law
enforcement, military and intelligence officials.
2003 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
On March 25, 2003, the President submitted a supplemental
budget request for fiscal year 2003 to address the continuing
threat to the national security of the United States posed by
Iraq. For the Department of Justice, the request includes $500
million for the Counterterrorism Fund to meet terrorism-related
prevention and response requirements. Among our top priorities
for the use of this funding is critical funding for the FBI
that addresses response capabilities, security enhancements,
language translation services, operational field expenses, and
surveillance support.
We also anticipate using a small portion of this funding to
meet increased U.S. Marshal Service security requirements for
the Federal judiciary and to upgrade the capability of the
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review for its role in the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant process.
2004 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's overall Justice Department budget request I
am discussing today will strengthen our capacity to fulfill all
of the Department's top priorities. The President's budget
requests $23.3 billion for the Department of Justice, including
$19 billion in discretionary funding and $4.3 billion for the
Department's mandatory and fee funded accounts.
TERRORISM PREVENTION
The September 11 attacks made it clear that America's
defense requires a new culture, a culture of prevention,
nurtured by cooperation, built on coordination, and rooted in
our constitutional liberties. The Justice Department is
battling terrorism by integrating our law enforcement effort,
not separating it, and by integrating, not separating, our
intelligence capabilities.
Our integrated terrorism prevention strategy is having an
impact on terrorist threats. Listen to this recorded
conversation between charged terrorist cell member Jeffrey
Battle and an FBI informant on May 8, 2002, in Portland,
Oregon. In this conversation, which was unsealed by the Court,
Battle explained why his threatening enterprise was not as
organized as he thought it should be. I will quote Mr. Battle
now.
``Because we don't have support. Everybody's scared to give
up any money to help us. You know what I'm saying? Because that
law that Bush wrote about, you know, supporting terrorism,
whatever, the whole thing. Everybody's scared. He made a law
that says, for instance, I left out of the country and I
fought. Right? But I wasn't able to afford a ticket. But you
bought my plane ticket. You gave me the money to do it. By me
going and me fighting and doing what they can by this new law,
they can come and take you and put you in jail.''
Mr. Chairman, terrorists clearly recognize the
effectiveness of the laws passed by Congress and utilized by
the Department to disrupt terrorist activity by interdicting
the funding of terrorism. It is a credit to our new
investigative tools, the hard work of the law enforcement
community, and our intelligence agencies, as well as a vigilant
public, that we have not suffered another major terrorist
attack in this country.
The FBI indicates that since September 11, 2001, over 100
terrorist plots have been disrupted and some, no doubt,
disrupted, delayed, or abandoned because funding was not
available as the intercepted conversation between two
individuals involved in terrorism clearly indicates.
Nevertheless, as the President recently stated, ``There is
no such thing as perfect security against a hidden network of
cold-blooded killers. Yet abroad and at home we are not going
to wait until the worst dangers are upon us.'' Therefore, we
will continue to seek the assistance of Congress as we enhance
a culture of prevention and ensure the resources of our
Government are dedicated to defending Americans.
INTEGRATED PREVENTION STRATEGY
Now, I would like to give you a brief overview of the
results to date of our integrated prevention strategy to fight
the war on terrorism.
First, we are gathering and cultivating detailed
intelligence on terrorism in the United States. Hundreds of
suspected terrorists have been identified and tracked
throughout the United States. Our human sources of information
intelligence have doubled. Our counterterrorism investigations
have doubled in the last year. In 2002, over 18,000 subpoenas
and search warrants have been issued. Over 1,000 applications
were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court targeting terrorist spies, foreign powers that threaten
our security, including 170 emergency FISA applications. These
are emergency requests for surveillance activity based on our
belief and information that there are threatening circumstances
requiring us to implement coverage immediately. Those calls
come to me at virtually any time of the day or night; and it is
my responsibility to approve those, when appropriate.
Second, we are arresting and detaining potential
terrorists. Four alleged terrorist cells were broken up in
Buffalo, Portland, Detroit, and Seattle. Two hundred twenty-
eight criminal charges have been brought to date. One hundred
thirteen individuals have been convicted or pled guilty,
including shoe bomber Richard Reid, American Taliban John
Walker Lindh, three of the six members of the Buffalo cell, two
more of whom pled guilty just last week, joining another
defendant who was already cooperating, and there are 478
deportations linked to the September 11 investigation.
Third, we are dismantling the terrorist financial network.
Thirty-six terrorist organizations have been designated as
terrorist organizations, $125 million in assets have been
frozen, and over 660 accounts frozen around the world; 70
investigations into terrorist financing, with 23 convictions or
guilty pleas to date related to terrorist financing.
Fourth, we are disrupting potential terrorist travel. Nine
major alien smuggling networks have been disrupted. Hundreds of
terrorist criminals have been stopped through the National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System, called NSEERS. Among
those individuals stopped, 11 suspected terrorists with at
least one known member of Al-Qaeda; 649 stopped at the border
who were wanted criminals, who had committed past felonies or
violated other laws; and 77 felons identified through domestic
enrollment, who were in the country illegally. They were not
stopped at the border but asked to come in and register as part
of the NSEERS program. These included a murderer, a cocaine
trafficker, child molesters, and individuals convicted of
assault with a deadly weapon.
Fifth, we are building our long-term counterterrorism
capacity. A near threefold increase in the counterterrorism
funds devoted by the Department, over 1,000 new and redirected
FBI agents dedicated to counterterrorism and
counterintelligence, 250 new assistant U.S. attorneys, 66 joint
terrorism task forces, a 337 percent increase in the joint
terrorism task force staffing, and fly-away expert teams for
rapid deployment to hot spots around the world.
We have made progress, but there is always additional work
to be done. And to that end, the budget request includes an
increase of $598.2 million for programs that support our
mission to prevent and combat terrorism, including $516 million
to enhance or complement the FBI's counterterrorism program.
Even as the men and women of the Justice Department fight
the war on terrorism, we do so within a framework that upholds
our other crucial responsibilities. Let me briefly review these
other core missions.
CORPORATE FRAUD TASK FORCE
First, the Department of Justice has taken decisive action
to combat corporate corruption and punish corporate
lawbreakers. The relentless work of the Corporate Fraud Task
Force, chaired by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, has
resulted in over 200 investigations opened into suspected
corporate fraud, over 200 people charged to date, and 70
convictions have been obtained. To date $20 million in assets
have been frozen, $14 million in forfeitures, and we are
seeking to forfeit more than $2.5 billion to restore to the
creditors and investors the resources, which were lost as a
result of the corporate fraud.
The Department is committed to ensuring a marketplace of
integrity and restoring the confidence of American investors
and protecting their assets. And to that end, the fiscal year
2004 budget requests $24.5 million to support the Corporate
Fraud Task Force.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
Second, the Department of Justice has continued to fight
the scourge of illegal drugs. Thanks to the tireless efforts of
the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force, we have increased the seizures of
drug assets from major drug trafficking organizations by 20
percent. We have dismantled 305 drug trafficking organizations
in 2002 alone. We have more than doubled the amount of heroin
seizures from 2000 to 2002. We have reached a 9-year low in
student drug use.
We have attacked the nexus, the connection between drug
trafficking and terrorism, including bringing charges in San
Diego against individuals for conspiring to trade heroin and
hashish for anti-aircraft missiles, which they allegedly
intended to sell to Al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The fiscal
year 2004 budget request includes $117.9 million to augment our
efforts to reduce the availability of illegal drugs, to
identify and dismantle drug trafficking organizations, and
support drug treatment.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Third, the Department of Justice has prevented and
prosecuted crimes against children. It allocated $2.5 million
to develop an effective nationwide Amber Alert Network. We have
reassigned three FBI investigative analysts to work full-time
at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We
are supporting Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces
across the Nation with technology and capacity. We are
dedicating a total of $15.2 million to the FBI's Innocent
Images National Initiative, a $3.6 million increase, to keep
pace with the nearly 2,000 percent increase in investigations
since 1996, investigations to combat the proliferation of child
pornography and child sexual exploitation via the Internet.
PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
Fourth, the Department of Justice has provided increasing
protection to Americans from gun crime. In the first 2 years of
this administration's Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative to
combat gun crime, we have increased Federal gun crime
prosecutions by 36 percent, which has helped lock up repeat
offenders and lower crime in cities across America.
For example, in Philadelphia, robberies at gunpoint dropped
11 percent, and the homicide rate is the lowest it has been
since 1985. In Kansas City, the murder rate dropped 23 percent
to its lowest level in three decades. This reduction translates
to 27 more people alive today who might not have been alive if
the previous trend had continued.
U.S. attorneys have charged 10,634 defendants for violating
gun statutes, and they have convicted and taken 7,747 gun
criminals off the street with those prosecutions. In 2002, the
conviction rate for those charged with Federal gun crimes--
which may include other non-gun related charges as well--was
near 90 percent. More than half of those charged were sentenced
to more than 5 years in Federal prison. Our success in these
areas would not be possible without the diligence and hard work
of State and local law enforcement agencies who are partners in
the Project Safe Neighborhoods endeavor.
FIRST RESPONDERS
To that end, the administration is requesting $8.5 billion
for first responders and state and local law enforcement in the
budget and in the supplemental appropriation; $2 billion in the
current war supplemental that is pending; and $6.5 billion in
the fiscal year 2004 budget request for both the Justice
Department and the Department of Homeland Security providing
funding for State and local law enforcement and first
responders.
CIVIL RIGHTS
Fifth, the Department of Justice has protected vigorously
the civil rights of all Americans. The Department has
strengthened our Civil Rights Division with an approximately 10
percent increase in both full-time attorneys at 355 and total
employees at 709, enforcing the Nation's civil rights laws
since the beginning of this administration; a 12 percent
increase in successful prosecutions of criminal civil rights
violations from the previous 2 years; a 100 percent increase in
settling pattern or practice police misconduct cases during the
first 2 years of the Bush administration than during the final
2 years of the previous administration; a $500 million amount
obtained for traditional black colleges through settlement of a
25-year-old desegregation lawsuit.
The Department has prosecuted more than 80 discriminatory
backlash hate crimes in the wake of September 11, for example,
by securing the conviction of Zachary Rolnik for violating the
civil rights of Dr. James J. Zogby, the president of the Arab
American Institute, by securing the guilty plea of Earl Leslie
Krugel for conspiracy to manufacture and detonate bombs at a
mosque and at a field office of United States Congressman
Darrell Issa of California.
The Department has prosecuted 43 non-September 11-related
hate crimes cases in the last 2 years and initiated over 600
non-September 11 hate crimes investigations.
The Department has coordinated the Voting Rights Initiative
to ensure access, honesty, and integrity at the polls on
election day that resulted in a smooth election with far fewer
complaints than were reported in recent years.
The Department has investigated, prosecuted, and convicted
record numbers of human trafficking and sex trafficking cases,
doubling the number of trafficking prosecutions and the number
of convictions over the previous 2 years.
Now, obviously, our Department has other vital missions I
have not been able to address here fully, but I would be happy
to address them during the questions. For example, the
Department's Antitrust Division successfully settled the
Microsoft case, receiving praise from Judge Colar Catelli for,
and I quote her now, ``The clear, consistent, and coherent
manner'' in which the Division reached this historic
settlement.
On the criminal enforcement front last year, individuals
convicted for antitrust violations and related criminal
offenses received a record average sentence of greater than 18
months.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and other members of the
subcommittee, as we work to achieve our Department's
objectives, I want you to know that none of these are possible
without the funding and the support and the framework of law,
which is provided through the Department into the Nation by the
Congress. And I want to express my appreciation to you for your
conscientious devotion to your duties of protecting America and
providing the resources through which the administration can
join you in that effort to protect this Nation.
I would be pleased to respond to questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Ashcroft
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor to
appear once again before this Subcommittee to present the President's
budget request for the Department of Justice. For fiscal year 2004, the
Budget seeks $23,334,844,000 for the Department of Justice, including
$19,001,955,000 in discretionary funding and $4,332,889,000 for the
Department's mandatory and fee-funded accounts. In total, the fiscal
year 2004 request is $259,513,000 over the comparable fiscal year 2003
Budget Request. The fiscal year 2004 Budget reflects the transfer of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Office of Domestic
Programs, and a portion of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection
Center (NIPC) and other Departmental resources to the new Department of
Homeland Security. It also reflects the transfer of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from the Department of
the Treasury to the Department of Justice.
On March 25, 2003, the President submitted a supplemental budget
request for fiscal year 2003 to address the continuing threat to the
national security of the United States posed by Iraq. For the
Department of Justice, the request includes $500,000,000 for the
Counterterrorism Fund to meet immediate or emerging terrorism-related
prevention and response requirements. Among our top priorities for the
use of this funding are critical items for the FBI that address
response capabilities, security enhancements, language translation
services, operational field expenses, and surveillance support. We
would also anticipate using a small portion of this funding to upgrade
the capability of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review for its
role in the FISA warrant process, and to meet increased U.S. Marshals
Service security requirements for the Federal Judiciary. The use of the
Counterterrorism Fund provides the Department with the flexibility to
allocate resources among components and priorities to meet
unanticipated requirements. The Department, of course, will apprise the
Committee through existing notification procedures of proposed
allocations.
The ongoing support of this Subcommittee for the Department's
critical mission--the prevention and disruption of terrorist attacks--
is recognized and deeply appreciated. You have worked with us to stand
up the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force; reorganize the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Criminal Division; improve security at
our Nation's borders; improve inspections at our air and seaports;
enhance our information technology infrastructure; increase information
sharing among federal agencies and with our state and local partners;
and undertake the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.
America is now more secure, more prepared, and better equipped to
defeat the continued threat of terrorism.
PREVENTING AND COMBATING TERRORISM, INCLUDING COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The fiscal year 2004 Budget places a high priority on securing
additional resources needed to fight the nation's war on terrorism,
while at the same time being sensitive to the overall economic picture
that confronts our Nation. Our budget increases overall
counterterrorism resources, while also reprioritizing some current
resources to supplement requests for new program enhancements.
In the days following the September 11th attacks, we initiated a
comprehensive review and wartime reorganization in order to identify
and redirect appropriate resources to our primary mission:
counterterrorism. With the submission of the fiscal year 2004 Budget,
the resources devoted to counterterrorism and homeland security have
increased by approximately $1.9 billion over the Department's fiscal
year 2001 Budget, representing an increase of 10 percent in the share
of the Department's resources devoted to counterterrorism prior to
September 11. Our budget request includes increases of $598,258,000 for
programs supporting our mission requirements for preventing and
combating terrorism.
For the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Budget requests
$516,258,000 in enhancements above the fiscal year 2003 request that
support or complement the FBI's Counterterrorism Program. Of the total,
$189,107,000 is focused exclusively on the FBI's counterterrorism
investigative capabilities. These increases will permit the FBI to
continue its efforts to identify, track and prevent terrorist cells
from operating within the United States and overseas and, where
necessary, to investigate terrorist acts.
To prevent terrorist attacks, the FBI must recognize and understand
worldwide economic, political, social, and technological changes that
have occurred over the last decade, and it must leverage existing
intelligence in support of ongoing cases and operations. Following
September 11th, with the support of this Subcommittee, Director Mueller
restructured the FBI's Counterterrorism Division to implement a
nationally-managed and centrally-driven Counterterrorism program (CT).
The program seeks to improve intelligence coordination and analysis,
enhance technical capabilities, and build a national response
capability that is more mobile, agile, and flexible and provides a more
proactive orientation toward meeting the terrorism threat. The fiscal
year 2004 Budget requests 430 support positions and $27,381,000 to
improve the FBI's capacity to manage this program, including:
--62 positions and $3,641,000 to build a national level of expertise
and knowledge that can be accessed by and deployed to all field
offices;
--115 positions and $7,081,000 to facilitate the collection,
analysis, exploitation, and dissemination of intelligence
gathered through the lawful interception of e-mail traffic of
known and suspected terrorists;
--61 positions and $3,605,000 to provide a centralized and
coordinated financial investigative component to identify,
disrupt, and dismantle terrorist financing operations;
--72 positions and $4,430,000 to significantly enhance the capacity
of the Terrorist Reports and Requirements Section to establish
policies and to develop and disseminate Intelligence
Information Reports;
--19 positions and $1,056,000 to improve the capability of the FBI's
National Threat Center to evaluate terrorist threats for
credibility and disseminate intelligence reports to the
appropriate intelligence and law enforcement communities;
--15 positions and $844,000 to support a robust analytical capacity
that will enable the FBI to better predict national security
vulnerabilities or targets;
--86 positions and $5,224,000 to provide additional support to FBI
Headquarters to expand the centralized management capacity of
its counterterrorism mission; and
--$1,500,000 to fund operational travel and to coordinate FBI
investigative efforts.
For Counterterrorism field analytical support, the Budget requests
214 positions and $14,603,000 to develop a comprehensive intelligence
program that can identify emerging threats and patterns, find
relationships among individuals and groups, and provide useful
information to investigators in a timely manner.
To support the FBI's prevention mission in the field, the fiscal
year 2004 Budget includes an additional 248 positions (149 agents) and
$28,046,000. These additional resources will expand the Bureau's
ability to identify terrorist operatives and their targets, penetrate
terrorist organizations, and neutralize or disrupt the threats posed by
terrorist activities.
New funding of $4,600,000 is requested for a communications
application tool capable of conducting sophisticated link analysis on
high volumes of telephone call and other relational data.
On October 29, 2001, President Bush directed the establishment of
the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF), a multi-agency
endeavor, whose mission is to prevent admission to the United States of
foreign terrorists and their supporters and to identify and locate
known and suspected terrorists who have gained entry to this country.
This Subcommittee has supported the Administration's efforts to stand
up the Task Force and to ensure a sufficient level of funding for its
critical mission. We recognize the difficulty you faced with your
allocation constraints and we deeply appreciate your support of the
FTTTF in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The fiscal
year 2004 Budget includes a total of $72,607,000 for on-going support
of the FTTTF.
The Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTTF) are the cornerstone of a
coordinated Federal, State, and local law enforcement effort for
conducting international and domestic terrorism investigations. The
JTTFs promote an atmosphere of immediate transparency between the FBI
and its other law enforcement partners that encourages and ensures the
sharing of intelligence information among participating agencies. The
fiscal year 2004 Budget requests an increase of $11,548,000 in non-
personnel funding to support the JTTF Program, of which $5,000,000 will
support an Information Sharing Initiative.
The FBI's Computer Intrusion Program targets cyber matters
affecting our national security and our economic security. The FBI
provides deterrence to disruptive intrusions by foreign powers,
terrorists, and criminal elements through the successful
identification, investigation, and prosecution of illegal computer
intrusion activity. The proposed increase of 113 positions (53 agents)
and $41,113,000 includes 66 positions (45 agents) and $11,128,000 to
combat computer intrusions and 47 positions (8 agents) and $29,985,000
for the Special Technologies Application Section to enhance technical
analysis capabilities in support of cyber investigations.
In response to the September 11th attacks, the FBI modified its
public information system infrastructure to establish a means for the
general public to report suspected terrorist activity via the Internet.
Located in the FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center
(SIOC), the Internet Team has received 375,000 tips, resulting in
40,000 investigative leads. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes an
additional 19 positions and $1,209,000 to provide 24/7 coverage for tip
review and analysis.
Complementary Terrorism Support Programs
The fiscal year 2004 Budget also requests an increase of
$409,151,000 for the Department's counterintelligence, national
security and criminal enterprise programs, all of which provide
complementary counterterrorism support. Of this total, $327,151,000 is
for programs and initiatives of the FBI and $82,000,000 supports
initiatives in other DOJ components. With your support in December
2002, the FBI reprogrammed $28,736,000 to counter the growing national
security threats around the country and strengthen the central
management of its counter-intelligence program. This was the first step
in an ongoing effort to implement the FBI's counter-intelligence
strategy. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests an additional 583
positions (94 agents) and $69,880,000 for the FBI's counter-
intelligence mission.
FBI Director Mueller has identified the need for upgraded
technology as one of the top 10 priorities of the FBI, recognizing that
over the years, the FBI failed to develop a sufficient capacity to
collect, store, search, retrieve, analyze and share information. As
this Committee is aware, the FBI has embarked on a comprehensive
overhaul and revitalization of its information technology
infrastructure. We appreciate your support of those efforts. The fiscal
year 2004 Budget provides enhanced funding for the FBI's information
technology programs of 3 positions and $82,247,000. Included in the
request is an additional $61,689,000 for operation and maintenance
costs associated with Trilogy hardware, $18,558,000 for recurring
hardware and software upgrades over the next several years to avoid a
gradual return to a technological state of obsolescence, and $2,000,000
for costs associated with operations and maintenance of the FBI's Top
Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Local Area Network (TS/
SCI LAN).
To enhance the FBI's response to crisis situations worldwide,
including secure, remote communications networks, specialty vehicles
and equipment, and helicopter support for hostage rescue, the fiscal
year 2004 Budget requests an additional 35 positions (7 agents) and
$24,187,000. The request includes 27 positions (6 agents) and
$14,984,000 to enhance Crisis Response Unit capabilities; $850,000 for
automation equipment in support of rapid deployment team operations; 6
positions (1 agent) and $2,226,000 for the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) to
provide aviation support during a terrorist or criminal act directed
against the United States, its citizens, or interests; and 2 positions
and $6,127,000 to provide Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) equipment
and supplies, staff, and training, for HRT and the SWAT teams to ensure
an appropriate state of preparedness to respond to counter-terrorism
threats and other assigned tasks.
The investigation of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon underscores the global nature of terrorism and the ability of
terrorists to plan, finance, and conduct operations in a variety of
countries around the world. Terrorist organizations such as Osama Bin
Laden's Al Qaeda have a presence throughout the Middle East, Europe,
and Asia. The FBI's Legal Attache (Legat) Offices continue to be
critical to our ongoing efforts to deny Al-Qaeda the ability to mount
future attacks by building and maintaining effective international
partnerships. For fiscal year 2004, the President's Budget includes an
additional 82 positions (19 agents) and $61,755,000 to expand and
support the Legal Attache (Legat) Program and the Visa Identification
Terrorist Automated Lookout (VITAL) System. Legats and VITAL will
provide a coordinated defense against terrorists seeking entry to the
United States or threatening our interests and citizens abroad. The
requested enhancements to the Legat Program of 30 positions (17
agents), and $47,527,000 will add personnel and upgrade the
communications capacity of the FBI's overseas offices, bringing the
technology infrastructure of Legats in line with the Trilogy Project.
Five new Legat Offices are requested in Sarajevo, Bosnia; Kuwait City,
Kuwait; Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Kabul, Afghanistan; and Belgrade, Serbia.
The requested funding will also expand five existing offices in Ottawa,
Seoul, London, Berlin, and Moscow.
The FBI's VITAL project will improve the Nation's security by
providing the United States embassies and consulates with the ability
to identify individuals who are threats to our national security before
they can gain entry into the United States via air and seaports. When
fully implemented, consular and immigrant officials will be able to
electronically process fingerprint-based criminal history checks of
visa applicants against the records in the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and authenticate identities
of travelers through biometrics prior to the issuance of visas. The
budget request of 52 positions (2 agents) and $14,228,000 lays the
groundwork for this important program by providing the necessary
personnel and funding to develop and manage the VITAL project and to
modify the IAFIS to provide the additional storage capacity needed to
retain and store embassy and consulate fingerprint submissions.
With the proliferation of information technology and the increased
availability of computers, criminal and terrorist activity has shifted
from a physical dimension in which evidence and investigations are
described in tangible terms, to a cyber dimension. The role of the
FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) is to provide assistance
to FBI field offices in the search and seizure of computer evidence and
in the conduct of forensic examinations where computers and storage
media are required as evidence. It is anticipated that more than 60
percent of the FBI's caseload will require at least one computer
forensic examination. To meet this growing demand, the fiscal year 2004
Budget includes an additional 45 positions (1 agent) and $18,040,000.
Resources will be used to maintain existing and establish new Regional
Computer Forensic Laboratories and to provide funding for rapid
deployment teams. This Subcommittee has led the support for the FBI's
CART program in the past and we look forward to continuing to work with
you on this important initiative in the future.
Since his appointment as FBI Director, Bob Mueller has made
significant changes in the organizational structure at the FBI in an
effort to make the agency more flexible, agile, and mobile in its
capacity to respond to the many challenges it faces. The Director
recognizes that the FBI must better shape its workforce and develop
core competencies if it is to effectively respond to the array of
national security and criminal threats facing our nation. Additional
training resources are a necessary component of reshaping the FBI. The
fiscal year 2004 Budget requests an additional 111 positions (76
agents) and $17,559,000 to improve training in the fields of
intelligence analysis ($2,450,000), counterterrorism ($14,027,000), and
cyber crime ($1,082,000).
The National Security Law Unit provides legal advice on all matters
relating to the national security responsibilities of the FBI,
including foreign counterintelligence, international terrorism,
domestic security/terrorism, and computer intrusion/infrastructure
protection matters. With the FBI's shift in focus to preventing future
terrorist attacks, the workload of the National Security Law Unit has
increased substantially. In fiscal year 2004, an additional 14
positions and $1,405,000 is requested to meet the expanded workload of
this office.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, you have been
instrumental in the elevation of the role of security within the FBI
through the establishment of a new Security Division that for the first
time in FBI history is responsible for ALL FBI security matters. As the
premier domestic agency conducting criminal, counterintelligence, and
counterterrorism investigations, the FBI is an attractive target for
individuals and organizations that seek to impede investigations, or
obtain sensitive national security information. The fiscal year 2004
budget requests 120 positions (32 agents) and $37,146,000 for continued
security improvements. The request includes:
--$5,050,000 to conduct additional contract background investigations
of on-board personnel and others with access to FBI information
and facilities;
--5 positions and $968,000 for an enhanced adjudication program aimed
at ensuring that security clearances are granted as necessary
and appropriate;
--24 positions and $6,888,000 for additional technical and physical
security improvements;
--54 positions and $15,821,000 for Police Force and Guard Services to
meet increased security requirements at FBI Headquarters, the
Washington Field Office, the FBI Academy, the Criminal Justice
Information Services Facility in Clarksburg, WV; and the New
York Field Office;
--37 positions (32 agents) and $6,419,000 to expand the polygraph
program, which is aimed at assuring that national security
information is not compromised by an FBI employee, contractor
or other individual; and
--$2,000,000 for the Defensive Programs Unit to develop technical
surveillance countermeasures.
The final fiscal year 2004 budget enhancement for the FBI relates
to its critical need for additional staff support for field
investigations. An increase of 300 positions and $14,932,000 is
requested for essential personnel to focus on the administrative tasks
associated with investigations, thereby allowing field agents, field
investigators, and technical support personnel to focus exclusively on
terrorist and criminal threats.
The war against terrorism cannot be won without the support and
assistance of our State and local partners. Our successes will depend
on our ability to share information and intelligence in a timely manner
with state and local law enforcement agencies. At its inception the
OJP-funded Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) supported State
and local law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking and
organized criminal activity. However, the regional information-sharing
concept has expanded and now more law enforcement agencies routinely
reach out to share intelligence across jurisdictional boundaries.
Section 701 of the USA Patriot Act authorizes RISS to operate secure
information sharing systems to enhance the investigative and
prosecutorial abilities of participating law enforcement agencies in
addressing terrorism.
A significant achievement in the last year has been the successful
effort undertaken to link the various databases used by State and local
law enforcement. We have connected the RISS with the FBI's Law
Enforcement Online (LEO) system developing a backbone for further
information sharing improvements. The fiscal year 2004 Budget seeks an
additional $12,000,000 to further expand RISS' accessibility to state
and local public safety agencies for the purpose of sharing terrorism
alerts and related information.
The Office of Justice Programs also provides significant assistance
to State and local law enforcement and public safety entities through
the training and technical assistance provided by its program experts.
OJP's training and technical assistance programs provide direct
assistance to state and local jurisdictions in developing and
implementing comprehensive, system-wide strategies and in demonstrating
and documenting programs that work. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
requests an enhancement of $3,000,000 to provide training to state and
local law enforcement, prosecution, and intelligence agency personnel
at the command level in the areas of domestic anti-terrorism and
extremist criminal activity. This funding will be combined with
existing funding of $1,238,000 for the hate crimes training and
technical assistance program to form one Bureau of Justice Assistance-
administered training program totaling $4,238,000.
The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Department of
Justice includes $851,987,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, which became a component of the Department of
Justice on January 24, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296.
The Homeland Security Act authorized the Safe Explosives Act,
establishing a new program of explosives licenses and permits,
expanding the number of individuals required to have licenses and
permits, requiring fingerprinting and background checks for all
applicants, and mandating the establishment of a National Explosives
Licensing Center. The provisions of this new Act will aid in the fight
against terrorism. The fiscal year 2004 Budget requests 88 positions
and $10,000,000 for ATF to carry out this new initiative. This budget
request will build upon the efforts being undertaken by the ATF to
implement these new responsibilities during fiscal year 2003.
As we succeed in the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of
terrorists, we must also provide for the safe incarceration of those
individuals. An increase of 2 positions and $23,000,000 is requested
for the Bureau of Prisons' Salaries and Expenses Account to provide
physical security upgrades at an existing facility that will house
terrorist inmates. The upgrades include enhancements to the perimeter
security of the facility and construction of maximum isolation cells to
ensure minimal exposure to other inmates.
The ability of law enforcement and public safety agencies to
communicate effectively is essential to our ability to respond to
future terrorism incidents. The Department's Narrowband Communications
Program is responsible for developing the Integrated Wireless Network,
a joint initiative with the Department of the Treasury, and several
agencies of the Department of Homeland Security. The fiscal year 2004
Budget requests an increase of $32,000,000 to continue the narrowband
investment in radio infrastructure and radio investments principally
along the Northern and Southern land borders and in key operational
areas such as New York City.
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) in the
Department of Justice plays a critical role in terrorism prevention by
providing operational support to the FBI in its investigation of
terrorism, primarily through the application for warrants under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). OIPR prepares and
files all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search
under FISA, assists government agencies by providing legal advice on
matters of national security law and policy, and represents the
Department of Justice in a variety of inter-agency forums related to
counterintelligence. The fiscal year 2004 Budget requests an increase
of 12 positions and $2,000,000 to increase the operational support
provided to the FBI through the application of FISA warrants and for
information technology improvements.
COMBATING CORPORATE FRAUD
Since the exposure of the corporate fraud scandals, the Department
of Justice has taken decisive action to combat corporate fraud and
punish corporate wrongdoers. To restore confidence in the integrity of
our markets, President Bush created the Corporate Fraud Task Force,
chaired by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, to bring the maximum
combined force of the Federal Government to investigate and prosecute
corporate fraud. In addition to the Deputy Attorney General, the
Department's Corporate Fraud Task Force members include the Director of
the FBI, the Assistant Attorneys General of the Criminal and Tax
Divisions of the Department, and several United States Attorneys from
around the Nation. We appreciate this Committee's support for the
Department's corporate fraud efforts and the $23,000,000 in additional
funding provided in fiscal year 2003 for the FBI and the U.S.
Attorneys.
The Department of Justice is working closely in coordination with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies through the
Corporate Fraud Task Force to ensure a marketplace of integrity. The
goal of our law enforcement efforts is clear: Information cannot be
corrupted; trust must not be abused; confidence must be maintained in
the markets; and the jobs, savings, investments, and pension plans of
hard working Americans must be protected.
For fiscal year 2004, our budget requests enhancements of 212
positions (56 agents and 22 attorneys) and $24,538,000 to continue
these efforts. For the FBI, we are requesting 118 positions (56 agents)
and $16,000,000 for staff and resources to target corporate fraud
cases. These resources will fund the immediate development or
improvement of existing liaison with other agencies, increased
corporate fraud training for agents and financial analysts and fund the
establishment of corporate fraud ``Reserve Teams'' of financial experts
dispatched to major fraud investigations. The budget also seeks
$8,538,000 for additional prosecutors, financial analysts and other
staff for the U.S. Attorneys, Criminal Division, and Tax Division to
enhance prosecutorial capacity in this arena.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND TREATMENT
Combating illegal drug trafficking and the continued wave of
violent crime associated with it remains among the Department's highest
priorities. The drug threat we face is not a new one, nor is the
priority we place on ending the toll that illegal drugs take on the
lives of Americans. The growing combination of drug trafficking and
terrorism serves to call us even more urgently to action. In March
2002, I announced a strategy to reduce the availability of illegal
drugs. The centerpiece of this strategy is the reorganization,
revitalization and restoration of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) program. It is a strategy that recognizes illegal
drugs as both a destructive force in the lives of individuals and a
destructive force to the security of this nation.
OCDETF's cadre of experienced and talented federal agents and
prosecutors, with support from state and local law enforcement,
exemplifies the government's collaborative capabilities to disrupt and
dismantle drug trafficking organizations and their related enterprises.
For 2004, the Administration has proposed to once again consolidate all
OCDETF funding for participating agencies from the Departments of the
Treasury, Homeland Security, and Justice within the Department of
Justice's Interagency Crime Drug Enforcement appropriation. The
reconsolidation of this funding will support the OCDETF program's
refocused mission and removes bureaucratic barriers to improved
accountability and resource management throughout the program.
Moreover, the reconsolidation supports the Department's strategy for
OCDETF to lead the charge in disrupting and dismantling the most
significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations.
To establish the automated capacity to analyze and disseminate
OCDETF investigative information, our budget proposes an enhancement of
$22,000,000. By leveraging existing Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task
Force (FTTTF) technology, OCDETF would analyze the drug investigative
information stored in existing database systems and, more importantly,
provide crucial capacity needed to rapidly ingest, conduct cross-case
analysis, and disseminate drug investigative information. Ultimately,
this system would expand the capability of OCDETF to use both existing
and new drug investigative information to make nationwide connections
among the sophisticated, compartmentalized components of major drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations.
In addition, our budget proposes an additional 192 positions and
$26,000,000 to enable OCDETF participants to mount comprehensive
attacks, in multiple national and international locations, on the
highest-level drug traffickers and drug organizations identified on the
Department's Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. By
concentrating our efforts on the top 53 command and control targets,
our resources will have the most profound impact on the overall drug
supply. Drug organizations are driven by the desire for profit; as
these organizations develop into larger enterprises, they employ
illegal financial techniques to transfer or transport drug proceeds, to
obtain and conceal assets, and to reinvest profits to promote ongoing
illegal activity. To combat these efforts, our budget proposes an
enhancement of 83 positions and $10,000,000 to expand the capability of
OCDETF agencies to conduct meaningful investigations of the financial
infrastructure supporting major drug organizations.
As the world's leading drug enforcement agency and the only single-
mission federal agency dedicated to drug law enforcement, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to target aggressively the
Nation's illegal drug threats in the post-September 11, 2001
environment. Our budget proposes an enhancement of 329 positions
(including 123 agents and 20 Diversion Investigators) and $38,880,000
for the Priority Targeting Initiative. Through this initiative, DEA
will target Priority Drug Trafficking Organizations involved in the
manufacture and distribution of illegal drugs as well as those involved
in the diversion of precursor chemicals used for manufacturing illegal
drugs. International partnerships are critical to our Nation's efforts
to combat the threat of illegal drugs. To continue the DEA's drug law
enforcement training to our counterparts overseas, our budget proposes
an enhancement of 20 positions (16 agents) and $1,500,000. Our fiscal
year 2004 budget also proposes an increase of 20 positions and
$2,500,000 to improve DEA's financial and asset management programs and
$7,847,000 in prior-year unobligated balances to design and construct a
state-of-the-art laboratory in the Southeast region (Miami, Florida).
This request will provide DEA's highly skilled and specialized chemists
with a modern, state-of-the-art facility.
The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget requests additional
funding for drug treatment programs in the Office of Justice Programs
and the Bureau of Prisons. To expand the Drug Courts Program, our
budget proposes an enhancement of $16,614,000 for fiscal year 2004. The
Drug Courts Program provides alternatives to incarceration to encourage
abstinence and alter behavior with a combination of escalating
sanctions, mandatory drug testing, treatment and strong aftercare. For
the Bureau of Prisons, our budget proposes an enhancement of 12
positions and $467,000 to support drug treatment for approximately
16,500 inmates. This will bring the BOP to its treatment threshold as
required by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
PREVENTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
A critical focus of the fiscal year 2004 Budget and a primary
objective of Goal II of the Department's Strategic Plan is to Combat
Crimes Against Children and Other Vulnerable Victims of Violence and
Exploitation. Children today face dangers wholly new to any generation.
The rapid expansion of the Internet into our homes, libraries and
public institutions has brought boundless opportunity within reach, but
the same vehicle that serves young people also aids those who would
harm them. The fiscal year 2004 Budget includes enhancements totaling
$19,094,000 to support efforts to reduce child abductions and firearms
violence.
The impact of firearms violence is particularly severe on our
children and young adults. Of the approximately 1,400 juveniles
murdered in 2001, 44 percent were killed with a firearm; and over 2,800
students were expelled in 1999-2000 for bringing firearms to school.
The Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is a model partnership between
ATF and local law enforcement designed to reduce firearms violence by
investigating illegal trafficking to youth. The fiscal year 2004 Budget
proposes to expand this initiative, begun in 17 cities in 1996, to an
additional 10 cities. The enhancement of 118 positions (62 agents) and
$13,000,000 will bring the total number of participating cities to 70.
Nothing hits home more than a missing child and nothing galvanizes
law enforcement and the communities they serve more than finding that
missing child and returning that child home safely. AMBER--America's
Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response--was created in 1996 as a legacy
to 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, who was kidnapped while riding her
bicycle in Arlington, Texas and then brutally murdered. After this
heinous crime, Dallas-Fort Worth broadcasters teamed with local police
to develop an early warning system to help find abducted children. I am
pleased that the fiscal year 2004 Budget includes $2,500,000 to develop
an effective, coordinated AMBER Alert program nationwide. The
Department's AMBER Coordinator, Assistant Attorney General Deborah
Daniels, will use these funds to train law enforcement and others in
operating an effective AMBER Alert system and to give radio stations
the software to upgrade their emergency alert systems so they can
broadcast an AMBER Alert. A sound AMBER plan is vital to the swift
recovery of a child in imminent danger of physical harm.
The Innocent Images National Initiative, a component of the FBI's
Cyber Crime Program, combats the proliferation of child pornography and
child sexual exploitation facilitated by on-line computers. The
Innocent Images National Initiative focuses on individuals who indicate
a willingness to travel interstate for the purposes of engaging in
sexual activity with a minor and on major producers and/or distributors
of child pornography. In the last six years, the FBI has seen a 20-fold
increase in the number of Innocent Images cases opened. The fiscal year
2004 Budget requests an additional 32 positions (19 agents) and
$3,594,000 to increase investigations and keep pace with the rising
trend of child pornography and sexual exploitation via the Internet.
ENHANCING DNA PROGRAMS
The fiscal year 2004 Budget includes increases of $106,220,000 in
expanded funding for DNA analysis. Forensic DNA analysis has rapidly
developed into a vital tool used to support an increasing number of
investigative efforts. Increased demand and limited processing
capability has created a significant backlog in cases requiring
forensic DNA analysis. The FBI's Nuclear DNA Program has examined
evidence from terrorist activities such as the U.S.S. Cole bombings,
assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the anthrax-laced
mailings and numerous hoax anthrax letters. On the State level, DNA
analysis has proved invaluable by instantly identifying repeat
offenders, as well as narrowing the field of potential suspects. The
fiscal year 2004 Budget will provide continued support to this
indispensable investigative tool for both State and Federal programs.
The FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and National DNA
Database utilize forensic sciences and computer technology as an
effective tool for solving violent crimes. CODIS and the National
Database enable Federal, State, and local crime laboratories to
exchange and compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking
crimes to each other and to convicted offenders. The FBI's DNA effort
began as a pilot project in 1990 serving 14 State and local
laboratories. Today, the FBI's National DNA Index System includes 42
States, two Federal laboratories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
It has produced more than 6,000 hits, assisting in more than 6,400
criminal investigations. Ultimately, the number of crimes it helps to
solve measures its success.
In fiscal year 2004, the Budget is proposing an increase of 32
positions and $3,283,000 to expand the FBI's capacity to collect,
analyze, and store DNA forensic evidence. The FBI plans to double the
processing rate of nuclear DNA cases by 2005, by increasing the number
of Forensic DNA Examiners and Biologist Technicians by two-thirds and
developing Rapid DNA Analysis Systems to replace manual processing. The
Budget requests 28 positions and $2,692,000 for this purpose. In
addition, 4 positions and $591,000 is requested to staff, supply and
equip the Federal Convicted Offender Program to collect DNA samples and
produce DNA profiles for CODIS. These resources will enable the FBI to
keep pace with the expanded terrorism-related offenses authorized by
the USA Patriot Act.
The fiscal year 2004 Budget also proposes a consolidated DNA effort
in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to assist state and local
laboratories to reduce backlogs of DNA samples and improve their
capabilities through increased information and research to make DNA
tests faster and cheaper. The Budget request proposes funding this
consolidated effort at a level of $177,000,000, an increase of
$102,937,000 above the fiscal year 2003 Budget request level.
Many of our Nation's crime labs lack the capacity to analyze all of
the DNA evidence collected by police. While all 50 States collect DNA
from their convicted felons, many lack the resources to enter these
samples into the national DNA database. As a result, there are some
500,000 samples awaiting analysis in laboratories across the country.
Reducing this backlog by entering these samples in State and national
DNA databases will assist law enforcement in linking offenders already
in custody to unsolved crimes. As of March 2002, the FBI's DNA database
had identified 610 offenders and produced 193 ``forensic hits'' in
which cases not known to be related were found to have been committed
by the same offender. The proposed enhancements for fiscal year 2004
will be used to--
--Reduce the DNA backlog through formula-based grants to expedite the
entry of DNA samples from convicted felons and unsolved crimes
into the national database;
--Improve the capacity of DNA crime labs through grants to state and
local crime labs for the acquisition of DNA analysis equipment
that will process samples more quickly and accurately; and
--Support continuing research on forensic DNA technology and provide
assistance for pilot projects.
PROTECTING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND MANAGING FEDERAL DETENTION AND
INCARCERATION CAPACITY
The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request seeks significant
resources to improve courtroom security, to detain the accused in
Federal custody and to protect the American public by providing for the
safe, secure and humane incarceration of sentenced offenders. Security
associated with terrorist-related court proceedings requires an
unprecedented level of protection for all trial participants because of
the global interest and intense media attention. These high-security,
high profile proceedings require extensive operational planning and
support from specially trained and equipped law enforcement personnel.
The United States Marshal Service (USMS) is responsible for safely
transporting accused individuals to and from judicial proceedings and
ensuring the safety of the judicial participants, the public, and USMS
personnel. To meet better the security needs of these proceedings; our
budget seeks 275 positions (231 Deputy United States Marshals) and
$26,599,000. The budget request for USMS also seeks $2,000,000 from the
Department's Working Capital Fund for courthouse security equipment.
This additional funding is sought to fund security systems, relocation,
and telephone and data lines for four new courthouse facilities opening
during fiscal year 2004.
During 2002, the Nation's prison population rose 4.4 percent, by
over 6,800 inmates. The Department's fiscal year 2004 budget request
seeks additional resources for the Bureau of Prisons to manage this
growth, including activation costs for seven new facilities. Our budget
seeks a total of 2,727 positions and $251,978,000 to activate 7 new
facilities including United States Penitentiary (USP)--Hazelton, West
Virginia, USP--Canaan, Pennsylvania, and USP--Terre Haute, Indiana,
Federal Correctional Institution (FCI)--Victorville, California, FCI--
Forrest City, Arkansas, FCI--Herlong/Sierra, California, and FCI--
Williamsburg, South Carolina. These facilities will add 8,000
critically needed beds to reduce overcrowding.
To provide adequate space to detain individuals in the custody of
USMS, our budget seeks an increase of $34,705,000. These resources will
fund additional bed space in state, local and private facilities for
Federal detainees.
MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT'S FINANCIAL AND INFORMATION RESOURCES,
INCLUDING ENHANCING INFORMATION SECURITY
The Congress has entrusted a significant level of resources to the
Department of Justice to enable it to carry out its important mission.
Our budget seeks additional funding to ensure that resources entrusted
have sufficient oversight. To strengthen the Department's management
and oversight of information technology security, including the
continued implementation of a Department-wide security architecture and
security standards, and the development and initial implementation of a
Public Key Infrastructure, the Department seeks an enhancement of 13
positions and $9,000,000. For fiscal year 2004, the Department also
seeks an enhancement of $15,000,000 for the Department's Unified
Financial Management System that will improve financial management and
oversight with standardized core functions across the Department.
To continue the deployment of the Department's Justice Consolidated
Office Network (JCON), our fiscal year 2004 budget seeks an enhancement
of $17,000,000 and $33,000,000 from the Department's Working Capital
Fund. These resources will continue to enable the United States
Marshals Service to increase the JCON-architecture deployment to 92
percent.
OTHER IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES
Our budget seeks $40,730,000, including $35,030,000 in appropriated
resources and $5,655,000 from the Department's Working Capital Fund, to
enhance several items of critical importance to the Department's
continued efforts. For the United States Attorneys, we are seeking 145
positions and $15,862,000. Of this amount, $10,207,000 in appropriated
resources would enable the United States Attorneys throughout the
Nation to address critical areas including civil defensive litigation
needs arising from greater demands associated with the implementation
of anti-terrorism programs after September 11, 2001, expanding civil
defensive case loads, and increased complexity of employment
discrimination and tort cases; and to provide for much needed
litigation support and enhanced timeliness of financial reporting. In
addition, $5,700,000 from the Department's Working Capital Fund would
enhance the United States Attorneys' information technology
infrastructure.
Our budget also seeks additional resources for the Environment and
Natural Resources and Civil Divisions of the Department. Requested
enhancements totaling 32 positions and $4,188,000 would enable the
Environment and Natural Resources Division to address its Tribal Trust
Fund docket and to further implement a critically needed initiative to
seek out and prosecute violators of hazardous material transportation
and handling laws. Additional resources of 30 positions and $4,500,000
for the Civil Division would enable the Division to continue to address
high-profile immigration cases which implicate the integrity of the
September 11, 2001 investigation and the Federal Government's response
and to fund additional costs generated by the 2000 amendments to the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), which triggered a nearly
five-fold increase in the number of RECA claims filed. An additional 28
positions and $2,000,000 are also sought for the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR). These additional resources would enable EOIR
to keep pace with workload increases as a direct result of increased
interior and border enforcement.
For fiscal year 2004, we are seeking $5,500,000 for the Office of
Justice Programs to fund additional Public Safety Officers Educational
Assistance payments and to begin converting the National Crime
Victimization Survey conversion from primarily a paper-and-pencil
operation to a fully automated data collection process.
The United States National Central Bureau continues to facilitate
international law enforcement cooperation as the United States
representative with the International Criminal Police Organization
(INTERPOL). Our fiscal year 2004 budget seeks an additional $932,000 to
fund increased dues payments on behalf of the United States to
INTERPOL. Additional funds are needed to replenish depleted reserve
accounts, while at the same time expanding operations and personnel to
focus on combating international terrorism.
We are proposing additional resources to provide enhanced building
security. In fiscal year 2004, our budget request seeks $6,517,000 for
improved perimeter security and guard services. This request builds
upon the fiscal year 2002 reprogramming proposal submitted by the
Department. In addition, for the United States Trustee Program, we seek
an additional $1,104,000 to enhance the information technology
infrastructure of the Program.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Subcommittee,
I have outlined for you today the principal focus of the fiscal year
2004 budget request for the Department of Justice. The Department
continues to evaluate its programs and operations with the goal of
achieving both component-specific and departmental economies of scale;
increased efficiencies; and cost savings. Aided by ongoing reviews of
business practices, we are beginning a comprehensive, multi-year
process to implement a wide range of streamlining and efficiency
measures that will result in substantial savings. Many of these
proposals have been incorporated into our fiscal year 2004 budget
proposal.
I look forward to working with you on this budget proposal and
other issues.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for that
extensive opening statement. It does remind me a bit of a
fellow I used to represent when I was practicing law named
Oscar Payne. He was about 78 years old, and he worked on a farm
up in Acworth, New Hampshire. He went to church once, and it
appeared he was the only one at church. And the minister spoke,
and did three readings from the Bible. He sang four hymns and
did a sermon, a full sermon. It was a very good sermon. They
even had the offering. They passed the plate.
And at the end of the service, the minister went to the
front door and said to Oscar, as he walked out, shook his hand,
``Oscar, what did you think?'' And Oscar said, ``Well, when I
go down in my field, if I only find one stalk of corn, I don't
dump the whole load of manure on it.''
We certainly appreciate that extensive statement.
And as is the tradition of this committee, we always defer
to the chairman when he comes.
Senator Stevens. I left my truck behind today, Mr.
Chairman.
Nice to see you, John. And you are doing a wonderful job.
We thank you very much for what you are doing. I have to go get
ready for the supplemental today and just dropped by briefly.
Thank you very much.
Attorney General Ashcroft. It is an honor to serve with
you, sir.
Senator Gregg. I also want to say you are doing an
exceptional job. And we----
Attorney General Ashcroft. You could have at least----
Senator Gregg. As an old friend, I enjoy you.
Senator Hollings.
CORPORATE FRAUD
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, I was listening to that litany of the various
prosecutions, indictments, convictions, and what have you, and
particularly with respect to corporate fraud. At the time that
you put the Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson in charge of
corporate fraud, at that particular time the question arose
that his firm represented Enron, Kenny-boy, Ken Lay.
Now 1\1/2\ years later, with all of those convictions that
you talk about, prosecutions and indictments and everything
else like that, we have not heard anything about Kenneth Lay.
Specifically, we see now in the news what we heard the first
couple of months before our Commerce Committee from California,
that it was a total fraud the way Enron was taking more than
their shortage of so-called allocation. And then with the more
or overage of that particular shortage, they were sending a
note, shipping it back in with the increased price, defrauding
the State of California. Now that has been verified in several
news stories here in the last 2 weeks.
At that time, there was a witness from the California
Public Service Commission or Authority or whatever. And I asked
him, I said, ``Wait a minute here now. That morning, Mrs. Lay
appeared on my television before I came to work, said that her
husband did not know anything about it. And the witness
testified he knew everything about it. He knew all the
details.''
With that in the public sector, what happens? You have
everybody but Kenneth Lay. And that is where it all started.
Can you tell the committee?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Senator, the corporate fraud
investigations are ongoing. As it relates to the Enron
Corporation, I am not informed about that. I am not a part of
it, because I was recused from those investigations as a result
of a determination that was reached that recusal would be
appropriate for me in regard to Enron. I do not want to be non-
responsive, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on
something in which I am not involved, which is an ongoing
investigation, and something from which I am recused.
Senator Hollings. Well, as the Attorney General, you should
be curious, just as this Senator is curious. Suppose you get a
report from Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson for you and
for me on the status of the Kenneth Lay case.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I would be happy to instruct the
Department to give you a complete report, to the extent it is
appropriate, on that investigation. It is something about which
I cannot give you a report.
[The information follows:]
Enron Task Force
As of June 19, 2003, the Department's Enron investigation
has resulted in the convictions of Arthur Andersen and 5
individuals, as well as the indictment of 15 other individuals,
including both the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
Enron. The investigation into possible additional criminal
activity is active and ongoing.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
Senator Hollings. Very good. Now let me ask with
specificity with respect to the National Security Council. Now
that we have changed over to domestic threats, at the time
President Truman organized the National Security Council, you
had the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the
Secretary of Defense, and everything else of that kind. We came
within a vote of really asking that the Attorney General and
that the FBI and others also be a part of that.
My concern is that the President gets a complete report
from his National Security Council. Do you meet with him every
day and give him a report intelligence-wise, or what is the
score on that? Because the old rule was that the FBI just
handled domestic crime; the CIA handled intelligence abroad.
Now we have got to doing or developing as you are doing, a
domestic intelligence. And you have to coordinate the two. And
I have some questions about the coordination. But I am
wondering if the President gets a complete report on the
domestic intelligence. What is the setup?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, every morning at just
about 7 o'clock, I begin my day meeting with FBI officials, as
we prepare to go and brief the President of the United States.
On a daily basis, we brief the President of the United States,
and we do so in the presence of those individuals who brief the
international intelligence.
One of the things that is very apparent to us is that there
is no longer a discontinuity or a break between things that
might be happening in the United States and things that might
be happening overseas. It is important that a complete picture
be given and that the FBI knows what is happening
internationally, and that the CIA knows what is happening as a
result of the domestic thing, and that the President hears it
all and be able to respond to it all.
The President devotes himself to that with a discipline and
an intensity which is very, very impressive to me. He does it
on a daily basis, and I witness it personally.
TERRORISM THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
Senator Hollings. Good. What about the status of the TTIC,
the Terrorism Threat Integration Center? Is that developed?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The Terrorism Threat Integration
Center, TTIC as some folks are calling it, is being stood up at
this time. It will go into effect on the first of May in a
formal sense, as a way of integrating intelligence that comes
from virtually all the sources that generate intelligence for
the country. It will provide access to participants in the TTIC
operation, meaning both the intelligence sources from overseas
and from at home, and the intelligence that is gathered, say,
by agencies that are not thought of as being intelligence
agencies but uncover information. For example, the Immigration
authorities who encounter information or Customs authorities,
who hear about potential smuggling and the like.
The Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which would have
the means of examining the intelligence information from all
agencies by virtue of having search engines, could harmonize
this information so it is all available. It is an attempt to
have it in a format which would provide easy processing, so
that information from different agencies, which has previously
been assembled in different ways, would be comparable.
The TTIC will first come into existence and be stood up, as
I said, on the first of May. It is later expected to be housed
at an independent location, directed by an individual chosen by
the Director of the CIA in consultation with the Attorney
General and the Director of the FBI and others. It will also be
at a location which will house the counterterrorism effort of
the FBI and the CIA. But they will be separately administered.
I believe it is important that the output of these
intelligence-gathering agencies be available broadly to both
sides. They have separate gathering operations, primarily
because the CIA has a culture of gathering outside the United
States, where the rules are far different than the culture of
gathering information inside the United States where we have to
have strict adherence to the laws and to the Constitution of
the United States.
Once information has been gathered by each of these
agencies and by the other contributing agencies, it is
available in this Terrorist Threat Integration Center. The
intelligence of these various agencies that participate is
available through a search engine function in the center that
should make intelligence available to the FBI, which was
developed originally by CIA, or vice-versa, and the other
agencies, so that we should have a far more comprehensive
understanding.
We should be able to integrate our understanding, rather
than having the right hand maybe have some substantial assets
the left hand does not know about. These assets should be
jointly understood, although they are independently developed.
The techniques for developing information in the United States,
as opposed to abroad, follow a different set of protocols,
guidelines, rules, which follow our Constitution, as opposed to
a variety of other rules which are available and imposed in
different settings overseas.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER BUDGET
Senator Hollings. The budget for TTIC, do you have it? Who
appropriates for that?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, I believe TTIC is not
provided for in our Department. I turned to make an inquiry
because funding associated with the TTIC will be for the entire
counterterrorism section of the FBI, which is part of our
budget. The $50 million to stand this project up was provided
originally in the Defense area. But I am not--I would have to
get back to you on the specifics.
[The information follows:]
Terrorist Threat Integration Center
The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense appropriation
included $104 million for the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center (TTIC), of which no less than $50 million is to be used
for FBI costs associated with TTIC.
EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION
Senator Hollings. Let us get a hold of it, so we can follow
it.
Now the distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, just left
for the supplemental. I note that you have some $500 million
for the Department of Justice in that particular supplemental.
Can you give the committee a breakdown on what that $500
million will be expended for?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Included in the $500 million are
resources that relate to the terrorist threats, and retaliatory
actions that might be taken against the United States.
Counterterrorism funds are requested to reimburse departmental
components for extraordinary costs, security enhancements,
language translation services, operational field expenses,
including overtime and surveillance support.
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review has been the
subject of very serious demands recently and needs----
Senator Hollings. Do you have amounts for each one of those
items?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We do not have a specific amount
for each of those items listed in the request that went to the
Congress.
Senator Hollings. Can you furnish that for the committee?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Pardon?
Senator Hollings. Could you furnish the committee with the
itemized amounts?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We will be happy to discuss
these needs with the committee. I do not know that I am
prepared to provide a detailed list. But as monies would be
spent, we would expect to be conferring with the committee
about the way in which they are spent. I can read the list of
the kinds of things, as I was beginning to do, that the funds
would be used for. It goes on to include the United States
Marshals Service courthouse security, which had to be elevated
as a result of a number of our law enforcement efforts in
terrorism.
We would be happy to be very collaborative about this
particular set of resources and understand the desire of the
Congress to watch carefully the expenditure.
Senator Hollings. Let me yield to----
Senator Gregg. Okay. I have some questions.
On that point, Senator Hollings and I expect, to offer
language to the markup which would require that we reintroduce
the transfer language and make it applicable to this account,
this extra $500 million, which does not sound to be
inconsistent with what you are suggesting you would be willing
to do anyway.
Senator Campbell, do you have some questions?
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened
very carefully and read the Attorney General's statement, too.
And I found it very detailed, a lot of information in there. I
was even interested in your analogy concerning the volume of
his testimony.
I do not want to know your reaction to that, Mr. A.G.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, could I please----
Senator Campbell. Yes. Why do you not go ahead?
Attorney General Ashcroft [continuing]. Just personally
note that this is April Fool's Day. And I was hoping----
Senator Campbell. Oh, okay. That explains it.
Attorney General Ashcroft [continuing]. That he would at
least follow that remark with the words ``April Fool.''
CIVIL RIGHTS
Senator Campbell. Well, in any event, I just want to tell
you, I think you are in a very, very tough job. You are really
in unchartered waters. And I want to associate my words with
the brief remarks that Senator Stevens said before he left. I
know that you are getting some accusations from different civil
libertarians about, you know, sort of a punitive agenda or
infringing on civil rights. And I do not see that at all.
We are facing a time in the United States that we have
never faced before. And from my perspective, I think you are
doing just about as good a job as a person can do, fully
recognizing that in America anybody gets to accuse anybody of
anything. And being at sort of the top of that ladder, you are
going to be the recipient of a lot of accusations.
But I noted with interest the number of people you have
increased in the Civil Rights Division, 709 employees now, I
believe you said. And the number of hate crimes that you have
prosecuted, and I did not remember the number of the 9/11-
related crimes you have also prosecuted, but I know that is
going up considerably, too.
And I think, very frankly, the numbers that you use would
do all of us well, because we get questions in our town
meetings and we get questions in our different forums about
what we are doing when we hear some of these accusations. And I
just wanted to commend you and say that you are setting an
example, I think, for all of us to try to find that balance
between preserving civil liberties and making sure that this is
a safer Nation.
I just wanted to put that in the record, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
TERRORIST THREAT
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Campbell.
In regard to the expanded war, Hosni Mubarak made an
interesting comment yesterday about the expansion of the
terrorist threat that the war is creating from his perspective.
Do you see an expansion of terrorist activity within the United
States?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We have expanded our efforts
dramatically. I think it is fair to say that there was
intelligence that indicated that an elevated and escalated
military presence by the United States and escalated activity
in Iraq might occasion additional activity by terrorists. And
we have acted to do that.
I think in my opening statement, it may have been somewhere
in the middle although it was less distinguishable, we have had
a very substantial presence in seeking to curtail the
activities of anyone who might be associated with terrorism,
including the interviews that would help us learn about
terrorist activities.
So, frankly, in the United States to date, we have an
increased effort by law enforcement and by the Department to
make sure that we are not placed at higher risk. And to date, I
must thank the hard work of the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies, State and locals, who have worked very diligently
with us to make sure that we have not seen specific terrorist
acts carried out in the United States.
Senator Gregg. Is there higher activity, however, that you
are trying to interdict?
Attorney General Ashcroft. As I indicated before, the
intelligence indicated that there were levels of threats that
were high. We believe that--and very frequently the level of
threats that you have is related to the level of activity. That
is what we are seeking to interdict. We hope that we can
continue to do it successfully.
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER
Senator Gregg. Now when you were talking with Senator
Hollings about TTIC, I am wondering how this coordinates with
all the other activities that we have. We have the Foreign
Terrorist Tracking Task Force. Homeland Security has a task
force. You have the National Theater Center--the National
Threat Center, and the FBI's analytical operations on
counterterrorism. Are these all going to be moved out to the
TTIC building?
Attorney General Ashcroft. No, I do not believe they are.
The FBI will maintain its own analysis. But it will also
contribute its information intelligence on terrorism to the
combined Terrorist Threat Integration Center. I think we
anticipate that the FBI will continue to make its own
independent evaluations but do so with the ability to gain the
information that is available to TTIC and contribute the
information it has to TTIC.
DEPORTED INDIVIDUALS
Senator Gregg. When you deport 436 people, do you keep
track of them after you deport them? It is sort of like putting
the sharks back in the ocean, is it not?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We maintain a list of those
individuals who have been deported and seek to make sure that
they do not come back into the United States. There are times
when individuals are deported and, depending upon the nature of
the situation, we alert the countries to which they are
deported. Frequently individuals in this setting are
individuals that we believe the receiving country ought to be
aware of and interested in. And we try and make sure that
happens.
We have not deported individuals when we have felt that we
had a valid basis for pursuing them for violations of the law
in the United States. Generally, if persons have violated the
law here in the United States in ways that are provable in the
Article III Courts--and, you know, we have standards in that
respect--for those individuals, we seek to prosecute them.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
three or four questions.
It is good to see you----
Senator Gregg. Excuse me, Senator Domenici. Senator
Domenici, I apologize. Senator Kohl was here before you. I
apologize.
Senator Kohl. I would be pleased to yield. Go ahead,
Senator.
Senator Domenici. Thank you.
It is good to see you. We are neighbors, but we still do
not see each other very much.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We sure do not.
Senator Domenici. It looks like you are doing all right,
though. You look healthy.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Is everything going all right, as well as
possible?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We are grateful for the
successes we have. And we are going to keep working as hard as
we can.
ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. Well, I have a few questions, I think
three or four. My first one has to do with the Alien Assistance
Program, SCAAP, and the Border Prosecutors Initiative. The
President's budget eliminates funding for the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program, as it did last year, a $565 million
reduction from 2002. I am concerned about the impact that
cutting this program is going to have on struggling counties in
States like mine, as they shoulder the significant cost burden
created by illegal immigration, which obviously is a Federal
responsibility.
I am also concerned that this cost burden may damage
localities' abilities to address other homeland security needs
that they may have. Border counties are growing faster than any
other region in the Nation. At the same time, they have a lower
per capita income, and a higher percentage of people below the
poverty level than any other region, making them the least able
to foot the cost of services for criminal illegal aliens.
In this time of heightened security in the border regions,
I think it is imperative to ensure the effective processing of
criminal illegal aliens, including incarceration by local law
enforcement agencies. So in the past years, I have fought to
increase SCAAP resources to relieve some of these costs for
local communities for detaining these aliens.
The State of New Mexico received a small amount, but
important, $2.3 million in 2002 for funding this program. A
recent New Mexico border county coalition study detailing the
costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens
estimates that New Mexico's three counties will spend an
estimated $5 million annually on criminal justice, law
enforcement, and emergency medical care for illegal aliens.
This is a small amount in your very large budget, but it is
very important for these rural impoverished counties.
So in view of this tremendous burden on border criminal
justice systems, how does the Department of Justice propose to
meet the costs of the Federal responsibilities that are
currently shouldered by States, if not through this program?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, first, Senator, let me be
the first to recognize that the incarceration of individuals
who come into the United States and commit crimes falls
inordinately heavily on those States that are on the border.
And the States of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California,
Florida, Illinois as well, have relied heavily on this program,
which is designed to undertake some of the costs of
incarcerating individuals who commit crimes after coming to the
United States illegally, and therefore are detained.
The administration has sought to improve our performance at
the borders, stop people from coming here illegally, and has
focused its resources on doing that, so as to diminish the need
to have people who come here illegally incarcerated because
they commit crimes. We want to stop them before they get here.
I think it is debatable as to how successful we are in all of
that. We have a Border Assistance Initiative that related to
the Southwest border that we are requesting that relates to
prosecution. But I understand that if you prosecute, you need a
place to put individuals, and that does not address the
detention of those individuals.
Ideally, we need to do a better job and continue to improve
our performance at preventing those individuals from coming, so
that later on we do not have to seek to remediate the problem
by detaining them in our prison systems at great expense.
As you mentioned, in the 2003 omnibus appropriation bill,
Congress provided $250 million for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP). The administration is seeking to
address those issues by improving our border performance and
providing the other assistance in the Border Initiative
Program.
Senator Domenici. Well, I bring it up because I think in
the preparation of the budget it is so easy to eliminate and
forget about these programs because of the bigger ones. But
actually, when you have a border State, and especially one
which is a broad area, not very much population in just a few
communities, this is a tough area. A couple million dollars is
pretty tough for those systems to try to accommodate. We will
try to see what we can do in the process to be helpful.
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
There is an institute called the State Justice Institute.
Are you aware of that within the Department, the State Justice
Institute? It has $6 million in the past----
Senator Gregg. I believe that is independent of the Justice
Department.
Attorney General Ashcroft. I am not aware of it. I think it
may be in the court system.
Senator Domenici. It is not in their budget?
Senator Gregg. No, it is not. It is an independent agency.
AMERICA'S LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MENTAL HEALTH PROJECT ACT
Senator Domenici. I am sorry.
Let me leave you a question with reference to the kind of
court system that is evolving called the mental health courts.
I am very aware of them, and had something to do with starting
them. They are beginning to mature. I personally believe that
they can have a great deal of positive impact on alleviating
overcrowding and creating greater judicial economy within our
court systems.
Are you aware of any steps that the DOJ is taking to
distribute the $3 million to implement America's Law
Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act?
Attorney General Ashcroft. We, in this fiscal year, have a
$4 million appropriation for distribution to assist about 23
different mental health courts around the country. As you have
indicated, this is something sort of on the cutting edge, new.
Senator Domenici. Yes.
Attorney General Ashcroft. In addition to working with
them, we are trying to develop a set of guidelines, procedures,
develop the information that would be valuable to other groups
that might seek to start such courts. The grant program is
underway. The awards are in the process of being made. There
are a couple dozen that appear to be most likely to be the
beneficiaries of the $4 million of grant money.
Senator Domenici. Well, I thank you for being empathetic
toward them. Some people seem to think they are a bother. But
essentially, when you look around the country and find that so
many individuals occupying prison space are actually mentally
ill. They are put there either in county courts or others
because of their mental illness, and nobody knows what else to
do, so they throw them in jail for a while. It does not really
work. Setting these courts up is a very good intermediary
process to do a better job in that regard.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, Senator, last year you
asked me at this hearing if I would get a briefing on these so
that I could become aware----
Senator Domenici. That is right.
Attorney General Ashcroft [continuing]. Of the value. And I
did get that briefing. And I have asked that the Department
work carefully to make sure that the grant resources are
properly made available.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Senator Domenici. My last observations and a few questions,
which I will submit for the record, have to do with the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. Now that program has
been a difficult one. We have gone back and forth as to how it
will be funded. But eventually we made it a mandatory program
and put $172 million in law. The Department has $172 million to
pay claims in 2002 and $143 million for claims in 2003.
I would like you to submit for the record a status report
on the payment of these claims. How many claims has the
Department approved, and how much has been spent, and what is
the average amount of the claims approved? This has become over
time a program that got bounced back and forth. It became
somewhat scandalous when people with claims could not get the
money because they were given IOUs, because we did not have the
appropriated funds.
Between the chairman and others, we have attempted to fund
it properly. It has been a terribly difficult program, not only
for me as one who helped start it, but for the chairman. I have
about five questions that will get this on the record so
everybody will know exactly where we are. I would appreciate it
if you would answer them as early as the chairman expects the
responses to the committee.
FEDERAL JUDGES--NEW MEXICO
And my last question has to do with New Mexico judges. The
latest reports on the need for Federal judges would indicate
that the area of the judiciary, Federal judiciary, that is most
in need are those courts along the borders of the United
States. And my State, while it is a small one, continues to be
one that needs judges because of the enormous criminal
caseload. I believe there is an indication in the latest study
that New Mexico needs three additional judges.
Are you aware of the last report? And are you going to do
something to recommend that there be compliance and an effort
to fill the need, as recommended, with reference to the Federal
judges?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, Senator, last year in the
reauthorization of the Department, there were judges created,
additional judges. The Department supported that. And the
Department supports the additional judges' specific numbers in
a particular report. Regional allocations are not something
that I am focused on at this time. I have been made aware of
the need, and I think that it is a need that this
administration understands and is willing to address.
Senator Domenici. Well, I will ask you for some specific
answers as to what would help alleviate this, if you would
answer those, also. We need some indication from you about them
so we can pursue it with a little more vigor to get the
positions filled. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Okay. Senator Kohl. I apologize, Senator
Kohl, for the mixup in the order.
Senator Kohl. Good morning.
Attorney General Ashcroft. Good morning.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Senator Kohl. Mr. Attorney General, within the past month
the FBI has warned law enforcement agencies nationwide that
terrorists could build a simple but very deadly chemical weapon
out of readily available materials. Specifically, the FBI cited
hydrogen cyanide, or chlorine gas, as easy to make chemical
weapons created by combining liquid and solid materials. In the
case of hydrogen cyanide, which was once used as a war gas, one
need only to combine cyanide and salt--cyanide salt and acid.
Pardon me.
What is so disturbing is how easy it is to obtain cyanide.
It is readily available at chemical weapon supply houses, from
mail order catalogs, or even via the Internet. Even more
disturbing is evidence that terrorists could use cyanide in a
future terrorist attack.
Has the Department of Justice reviewed the potential use of
these poisons as a terror weapon? Do you think that Congress
needs to consider regulating the sale of toxic substances like
cyanide through a permit system to ensure that it does not fall
into the wrong hands?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, first let me say, Senator,
that this is a matter of real concern. I know that this is a
matter that the terrorist community is aware of, that among the
kinds of evil chemistry and other threats that they deal in,
this is among those kinds of circumstances.
And I would be very happy to work with individuals in the
Senate, and in the House for that matter, if they were to
choose to seek to address this problem, just as we have been
very pleased to work with you as it related to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The new
explosives regulatory format, which is being implemented--and I
must commend your staff for working with the Justice Department
closely to iron out the difficulties there. The ATF has become
a part of the Department of Justice. This new regulating
responsibility for explosives is something they are working
together on and, I think, productively.
We would be happy to confer in regard to efforts in the
Congress that might relate to improving our safety and the
security of the country when threatened by evil chemistry from
terrorists or others.
TOBACCO SMUGGLING/TERRORIST FINANCING
Senator Kohl. Thank you. I would like to work with you on
that. Mr. Attorney General, recent ATF investigations reveal
that tobacco smugglers are using the profits they make from
their illegal operations in the United States to fund terrorist
groups, like Hezbollah, among others. Furthermore, the GAO
estimates that State governments are losing billions of dollars
in tax revenue because of cigarette smuggling and Internet
sales of cigarettes. This is a serious problem that is not
getting the attention it deserves as a funding source for
terrorism.
I am considering introducing legislation to increase the
penalties associated with tobacco smuggling. Do you agree that
this is a serious terrorism-related concern? And will you
pledge to work with me and my staff on this legislation?
Attorney General Ashcroft. I certainly do agree that it is
a serious terrorist concern. Last fall, in Charlotte, North
Carolina, the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI, together
with the ATF, dismantled the terrorist financial support cell
which operated there, which was funding terrorism, according to
the allegations, out of the smuggled cigarettes which are
bought in a low tax jurisdiction, transported to a high tax
jurisdiction, and sold. The money which would have otherwise
been available as tax revenue in the higher tax jurisdiction is
diverted either into criminal activity or terrorist activity.
And in the case last fall, 26 individuals were charged with
various crimes, including racketeering, money laundering,
immigration fraud, credit card fraud, marriage fraud, visa
fraud, bribery, and providing materials to support terrorist
organizations. Now that is not a litany of good things.
So we are concerned about the problem and would be happy to
work with you in regard to legislation that might help
remediate the capacity of criminals generally, and terrorists
as well, to fund their activities that threaten the security of
our people through the use of these kinds of resources in
smuggling.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
Senator Kohl. Thank you. I would like to ask a question
about local law enforcement funding. This budget slashes
funding for State and local law enforcement. For example, the
following programs are either drastically reduced or just plain
eliminated. The Burne Memorial Grant Program, the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant Program, the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant Program, and State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, the COPS Universal Hiring Program, COPS and
School Program, and the COPS Technology Program. Combined,
these important programs delivered more than $2.9 billion to
police departments across the country last year.
The fiscal year 2004 DOJ proposal rolls most of these
programs into a $559 million Justice Assistant Grant Program.
And only the COPS Technology Program has survived, although
even that program had a reduced funding level. This is a
startling cutback of law enforcement assistance of more than $2
billion.
What does not make sense about this huge reduction is that
we are asking State and local law enforcement, as you know, to
devote even more time and resources in the fight against
terrorism. Many of our law enforcement agencies' budgets are
dependent on Federal aid, as you well know. And if we abandon
them, then they will have a very tough time doing what we are
asking them to do with even less funding. It does not seem to
make too much sense. What are your comments?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, first of all, if you
combine the supplemental request and the request for this
appropriation year, it is clear that the money that goes to
local law enforcement through the Justice Department and
through the Department of Homeland Security is far more than it
has ever been before; so while the justice portion of the
resources may not be what it once was, the development of new
resources through the Department of Homeland Security provides
a much greater resource. For example, the President's 2004
budget request, plus the supplemental transmitted last week,
totals $8.5 billion, which is a very, very substantial sum of
money.
Now as it relates to the COPS Hiring Program and a number
of the other programs, some of them are discontinued because
this administration believes that they have fulfilled their
purpose. Others, like the resources available under the Justice
Assistance Program, which is right at $600 million, are not
earmarked for specific programs to provide for greater
flexibility on the part of law enforcement to meet the needs
that they have. This administration believes flexibility is
more valuable.
I understand that there is a difference between the
administration and the Congress, as it relates to earmarks and
that is probably going to be something that there is continuing
discussion on. But overall, when you put together the
supplemental and the budget request, it totals far in excess of
anything we have ever done to assist State and local first
responders and law enforcement personnel. And we believe that
it should help them be the kind of excellent partners they have
turned out to be.
If I could just take this moment again to commend our
colleagues in State and law enforcement. They have risen to the
challenge of defending America with the kind of team work that
is very, very gratifying.
TERRORISM THREAT WARNING SYSTEM
Senator Kohl. I appreciate your comment. And I am sure you
are aware of the many complaints across the country in terms of
our asking them to do more and their contention that we are, in
fact, providing fewer dollars while at the same time asking
them to do more.
I would like to ask a question about the orange terror
threat level alert. For the second time in the last 2 months,
the country is again at the orange terror threat level. Last
month we talked about these warnings. And I asked whether they
could be reorganized or regionalized or made more specific. And
you gave a very thoughtful answer at that time.
That said, the threat level was raised when the war began
in Iraq. Was the war the rationale for raising the threat
level, or had there been particular threats to certain cities
or industries? My concern is that when we put the entire Nation
at a heightened sense of alert for extended periods of time,
then vigilance will fade. And we will become perhaps even numb
to the orange alert.
Is there any better way to target this alert system so that
local law enforcement agencies or particular States and
localities that really need to be on the lookout are alerted,
and other places in our country which are much less at risk are
not put at the same high level of alert?
Attorney General Ashcroft. Senator, when we last spoke
about this, a migration was underway, which has been underway
for some months now, of moving that from the Department of
Justice, in terms of primary responsibility, to the Department
of Homeland Security. I am pleased to make a response.
I think when we talked last, we talked about understanding
that, I think as everyone can, there are many areas in the
country that are not as likely as other areas to be the subject
of major attacks. That is one of the reasons why the alert
system is an advisory system that does not mandate specific
activities on the part of people, but suggest things that might
be done based on the kinds of assets, infrastructure, or
otherwise that exist there.
At that time, I did comment as well, and I thank you for
reflecting on my comments then. We have learned, however, that
preparations for terrorist attacks tend to take place in a wide
variety of settings that are not likely to be the ultimate
attack locations, or at least were not on September 11. We saw
terrorist preparations all across America, in towns small and
large, from Portland, Maine, to Oklahoma City, I believe it
was, to the west coast, across the Southwest, Minneapolis, a
wide variety of places.
So one of the things we want to ask Americans to do is not
just to be alert to the fact that there might be an attack
there, but be alert to the kinds of circumstances that might be
preparatory for an attack or individuals who might be involved
in the developing of the skills or assets necessary to launch
an attack.
I have said all this now to say that the Department of
Homeland Security is now the final arbiter of whether we
change. I would just add this one final remark, which I believe
is in direct answer to your question. I know of no instance
when the risk, when the level was raised that it was not raised
in response to an understanding of the risk being higher. I
know of no instance when the level was lowered when it was not
lowered in response to the fact that we believed that we had
digested some of the risk, and we could go back to the lower
level.
So that threat warning system is a risk-related system. It
is designed to reduce risk and that is sort of strange. As you
know, weather reporting is not designed to reduce or change the
weather. But this system is designed to actually reduce the
risk because if we get on a higher alert, it is very likely
that we can, by being more active, reduce the likelihood that
we will be hit. And that is an anomaly, but it is the truth.
I hope that when we elevate our sensitivity and we take
extra steps, we displace and disrupt terrorism. So it is risk-
driven. It is information-driven, not aspiration-driven. We do
not put the risk where we want it to be. We take a look at the
information, and we make the determination. I am kind of
reporting historically now, since this is not my final call
anymore, but that is the way I believe it is run.
And when we do it properly, we report a risk, we diminish
the risk by reporting it and enlisting the American people in
working to make sure the risk never materializes.
ROCKET LAUNCHERS AND AIRLINE SECURITY
Senator Kohl. All right. Thank you. One last question on
rocket launchers and airline security: Recent news reports have
highlighted the danger that shoulder-mounted rocket launchers
pose to commercial aircraft. In fact, there was an attempted
rocket attack on an Israeli airliner in Kenya last November.
Fortunately, it was not successful. News reports suggest that
Federal authorities are concerned about the issue with regard
to airports, or particular airports, around our country.
Given that these weapons are widely available, cheap, and
easy to make, should not the American flying public be
justifiably concerned that what happened in Kenya could happen
here? Are you doing anything to assess this risk? Do you have
any activities that you have undertaken to help prevent such an
attack here in this country?
Attorney General Ashcroft. This is a matter of concern. I
believe that the airline industry provides secure air traffic
in the United States. My family and I are in the planes on a
regular basis. My wife will be flying today.
So we believe that this is a matter that is appropriate for
our attention, and it is a matter that we consider and are
carefully assessing.
RISK OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES
Senator Kohl. One last question, if I might ask: Was 9/11
the watershed moment in terms of all the terrorism that we are
trying to prevent in this country? Was the risk as great before
9/11, but we were not aware of it? I guess many of my
constituents back home are trying to understand and figure out
why it is today we are so, so concerned, justifiably, about
terrorism, doing so much and spending so much to prevent
terrorism.
What happened before 9/11, or were we fortunate, you know,
and perhaps somewhat naive, and we are much more sophisticated
now? In your mind, this is just a judgment, but----
Attorney General Ashcroft. Well, frankly, Senator, I think
9/11 was a watershed event. I think if the water did anything,
it washed our eyes so that we could see that America was not as
isolated as we had once thought and hoped. We had relied on
oceans to defend us and to make us different.
Terrorism had been significant around the world, but it had
only really reached America in one previous setting where it
was an American terrorist who had killed almost 170 people in
Oklahoma City, a very serious event. But we had not seen
terrorism as international. We had seen terrorism in other
settings, in other countries, but the international terrorists
had never reached into America.
And while we were concerned about things that were
happening overseas and happening to our assets overseas, no
relation, but the U.S.S. Cole bombing was one of those things.
The bombings of our Embassies were things like that, but they
were overseas.
We were introduced to the idea of international terrorism
actually having very serious impacts here, and I do not want to
disregard the fact that there was the attempt on the World
Trade Center in the early 1990s, which was a bombing attempt,
and that should be understood. But we saw it entirely
differently after 9/11, and we should. And if I could do it
over again, I would. If I could relive the 1990s, I would spend
some of these resources in the 1990s to see if we could have
prevented what happened in 2001.
It is clear from what we know, having survived 9/11, and
what we have learned in the intelligence community, that there
are still very serious individuals with capacity, who would
continue to hurt the United States, at a level as great as or
greater than the injury to the United States on 9/11. We take
that very seriously and are addressing those threats as
intensely as we possibly can, respecting the framework of
freedom which we have the responsibility to defend, and without
which we would not care about defense. The only thing worth
securing is liberty, and we are not going to trample on liberty
in order to develop security.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General,
Senator Gregg.
OPERATION TOP OFF
Senator Gregg. That was an interesting question, Senator
Kohl. I would just note that this committee, prior to 9/11, did
a lot in the area of terrorism and had a lot of trouble getting
the attention of the community out there on that issue. We held
two operations, called Operation Top Off, which was a chemical
attack and a major bomb attack. One was held in Denver, and one
was held in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. They were held over the
strongest objection of the community out there that was
supposed to be doing the exercises. And finally this community
had to actually force those communities to pursue that.
In addition, we held a joint hearing with this committee,
the Defense Committee, the Intelligence Committee, where we
asked all the agencies to come up and testify before us. The
Attorney General was kind enough to do that prior to 9/11. And
what was highlighted there was once again our lack of
readiness.
I think our culture has a lot of trouble dealing with
issues until we have an event. And that is just the nature of
the American culture, I am afraid. We have had the event, and
we are certainly aggressively dealing with it. And the Attorney
General, I think, is doing a superb job, as is the FBI, to try
to deal with it.
Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Senator Gregg is too modest. Actually he,
long before any kind of hearing or finding by Hart and Rudman,
this subcommittee, under his leadership, had hearings on
terrorism. He instituted a training course. Several hundred
were lost at 9/11 that had been trained. And 80,000 at that
time, I will never forget it, had already been trained in
terrorism work that was an initiative by Senator Judd Gregg. So
we have been working on it.
On your successes, and I speak only from experience having
served with the Hoover Commission some 50 years ago,
investigating the CIA and the FBI, amongst other intelligence
agencies, I was inculcated by Alan Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover
on this need to know discipline. And yes, everybody has to be
proud of the successes. But in your game in antiterrorism and
otherwise, a lot of them should not be even announced.
Specifically, I will never forget when we got that hit in
Yemen, that car full of terrorists, the FBI participated in
leads for that particular hit. The Yemenites covered for us.
They said there must have been explosives in the car. They do
not know what happened. No, no. Big mouth, ``Oh, no. We have a
drone. We run them down with a drone.''
We got Mohammed in Pakistan. We followed him for 6 months.
We could not keep our mouths shut for 6 hours so the FBI could
follow the leads we got from him.
And on top of it, we bragged about, ``Oh, we got the
computer, we got this, we got that.'' Lies, so you got nothing.
You just got the fellow, but he just did not give you any
information. But use the leads to enforce law.
I find too much braggadocio. ``You are either with us or
against us here. Now is the time. The time has run out. You are
irrelevant.'' Now, ha-ha, we are running around saying, ``You
are very relevant, and we need your help.'' I mean, this crowd
has been bragging too much.
STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING
Other than that, let us get back to Senator Kohl's question
because, General, you said that none of this was possible
without the funding. Yes, the Office of Domestic Preparedness
was transferred to Home Security. And I am on that
subcommittee. But that did not supplant the $500 million of the
Burne Formula Grants. That does not supplant the $397.4 million
that you cut out of local law enforcement block grants. You
eliminated COPS Hiring Programs, the COPS interoperability, the
$139.9 million in the COPS Law Enforcement Technology Program.
Just when crime is on the way up, you cut out the money and
give us a Mitch Daniel put-off, that ``Oh, well, we have a lot
more money in the other budget.'' We are here on all the
budgets.
And you had the successes. And now you are cutting it out.
Well, in the DEA, that is under you, you changed the FBI to 567
FBI agents that were working on drug enforcement that are now
working on terrorism. So what happens to the DEA? That was like
the hearing we just had last Thursday. You had both Governor
Ridge and Secretary Rumsfeld up here, and they are fighting
over the same people. These first responders, policemen and
firemen and the National Guard, and all my crowd had cleared
out. They are out in the Persian Gulf now and in Iraq. And we
look around, and we find out that we just do not have enough.
I told Secretary Rumsfeld rather than a money supplemental,
he needed a manpower supplemental. You have 12 of these
peacekeeping. You have a war in Iraq. You have a war in
Afghanistan. And you have a terrorism war here. And you are
still trying to do it. And everybody is fighting over the same
manpower. And we cannot afford to cut these particular grants,
cops hiring programs and different other things of that kind,
the DEA. A war in Iraq is not going to be shortchanged money.
You cannot shortchange the terrorism war. We need way more
cops. We need way more effort and everything else.
Last week, when they had that other alert that you folks
put out, the Governor of South Carolina had to take and put
parole officers around the Port of Charleston. He just ran out
of personnel. And that is the same with the airports and
everything else.
I just want you to get a grasp of this thing, because this
is a grasp that you can, Senator Kohl, Chairman Gregg, all of
us have. I mean, the buck stops here. And we are not going to
shortchange Iraq. You do not have to worry about the money for
Iraq. We would be falling over each other. Support the troops.
Support the troops. We are running around with the flag. Of
course, we are not going to pay for it. We are going to borrow
for the troops.
This is some crowd. But then to go even further and cut out
the working programs when crime is on the increase and
everything else of that kind, I just want to register that
observation.
TRILOGY
Let me ask about Trilogy. Where is that? What is the final
price tag? What is the status of it, you know? So everybody in
the FBI is talking to everybody. We had the Arizona agent, that
somehow it fell between the cracks. The Minnesota young lady
who had to travel all the way, and they then would not listen
to her, and everything else. So we gave Mueller, Director
Mueller, millions and millions of dollars. This committee had a
program transfer November a year ago, a year and a half ago
now. So what is the program? Do we have it? Is it working? Do
you need more money? We are going to get it done.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We are going to get Trilogy
done. It was a project started several years ago, before 9/11.
It has been upgraded on the basis of several things, including
9/11. The first big deadline was to get all the computers
talking to each other. That was to take place by March 31,
yesterday. I am happy to report to you that we came in 3 days
early on that. We met the deadline. By March 28 Trilogy was
operational.
The Trilogy Wide Area Network connects computers throughout
the FBI, except for a couple crucial computers that were
involved in specific matters that were ongoing and could not be
disrupted in order to make the switch-over at this time.
The next big deadline, which is scheduled for completion,
is the upgrade of software for desktop computers by November
2003. And by the end of this year, December----
Senator Hollings. Do you have the money for that, for the
November time line?
Attorney General Ashcroft. The money is in the request. The
original request was short $137.9 million. It was short for two
reasons: 20 percent of that, about $27 million, close to $30
million, was underestimated. The other 80 percent, $111
million, has gone up as a result of the Hanssen case. We
learned we did not have the security in our computer system we
needed, if you remember the case.
Senator Hollings. Oh, yes.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We cannot forget it, and we
should not forget it.
In the McVeigh case, you will remember, that was the first
execution the Federal Government had undertook in about 25
years. We found out that we needed, according to the Inspector
General, additional capacity to track evidence and the like in
the computer system. Trilogy was upgraded as a result of 9/11.
All of these things are accommodated in the budget. And we
expect to have the virtual case file capacity in place by
December of 2003. The virtual case file addresses the idea that
you raised in your question about whether people in one part of
the organization can know about information that is developed
in another part of the organization. As a case oriented
organization, when it was a paper system, the paper file of a
case was where the case was prosecuted. The rest of the
organization did not necessarily know about the facts and
circumstances in that setting.
The electronic file, of course, can be transferred and
replicated without expense, once you have an electronic system.
That is known as the Virtual Case File Program of the Trilogy
effort. That is on schedule to be implemented by December of
2003 so we will no longer have disparities between what is
known about a circumstance in one part of the country and
another part of the country.
When case information is available on a broader basis, the
information which comes out of these cases and investigations
is also intelligence. It has intelligence value. And it
appropriately can be fed into TTIC, so that the Terrorist
Threat Integration Center, can be aware of that as well.
The work in this respect is very important. We just met the
March 31 deadline. We are on schedule to meet the other
deadlines. And the resources are in the budget to achieve that,
according to my best information from the Department, which is
making major progress in this respect.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Fiscal Year 2004 Trilogy Request and Reprogramming
The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget includes $82.2
million and 3 positions for Information Technology (IT)
Projects, including funds to continue the Trilogy initiative
and other critical IT projects. Funds include $18.5 million for
recurring hardware and software upgrades and replacement over
the next several years to preserve the gains made through the
Trilogy program and avoid gradual erosion of the FBI's upgraded
technology. These funds also include $61.7 million for costs
associated with completing the communications circuit
installation; hardware and software acquisition and
maintenance; and contractor support for the Enterprise
Operations Center. Finally, $2 million of the fiscal year 2004
President's Budget is to upgrade the Top Secret/Sensitive
Compartmented Information Local Area Network at FBI
Headquarters.
In addition, the Department of Justice transmitted a
reprogramming request to Congress on May 21, 2003, proposing to
redirect $137.9 million in existing resources to the Trilogy
program. This proposal represents an increased level of funding
to complete Trilogy, from a total project cost of $457.8
million to $595.7 million. Additional funding is needed to
ensure Trilogy addresses all identified requirements related to
the network/infrastructure and applications components, as well
as program management support and component integration issues.
The reprogramming reflects the Department's response to
changing requirements resulting from events such as the World
Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, as well as the Hanssen and
McVeigh cases, most notably expanding the scope and adding risk
mitigation to ensure success of the Trilogy project.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hollings. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit some other
questions.
Senator Gregg. Mr. Attorney General, we have a variety of
questions, especially dealing with technical aspects of the
budget and dealing with capital costs specifically and
personnel, that we will submit to you in writing and would
appreciate your staff getting back to us with some answers, if
they have the opportunity.
And we appreciate you taking the time to come and thank you
for your courtesy.
Attorney General Ashcroft. We will make the answers to the
questions a matter of priority. And thank you very much for
your help.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
SCAAP AND SOUTHWEST BORDER
Question. Mr. Attorney General, as you are aware, the President's
Budget completely eliminates funding for the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program, as it did last year, a $565 million reduction from
fiscal year 2002. I am highly concerned about the impact cutting this
program would have on many struggling counties in New Mexico, as they
shoulder the significant cost burden created by illegal immigration, a
federal responsibility. I am also concerned that this unbearable cost
burden may damage localities' ability to address other homeland
security needs.
Border counties are growing faster than any other region in the
nation. At the same time, they have a lower per capita income and a
higher percentage of people below the federal poverty level than any
other region, making them the least able to foot the cost of services
for criminal illegal aliens. In this time of heightened security in our
border regions, it is imperative to ensure the effective processing of
criminal illegal aliens, including incarceration by local law
enforcement agencies.
In past years, I have fought to increase SCAAP resources to relieve
the significant costs imposed on local communities by the costs of
detaining criminal aliens. The state of New Mexico received $2.3
million in fiscal year 2002 funding through this program. However, a
recent U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition study detailing costs
associated with processing criminal illegal aliens estimates that New
Mexico's three border counties alone spend an estimated $5.0 million
annually on criminal justice, law enforcement, and emergency medical
care for illegal immigrants.
In view of the tremendous burden on border criminal justice systems
in the border region, how does the Department of Justice propose to
meet the costs of the federal responsibilities currently shouldered by
states and localities, if not through SCAAP?
Answer. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is a
payment program designed to provide federal assistance to states and
localities that incur costs for incarcerating certain criminal aliens
held as a result of state convictions. In fiscal year 2004, the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) requests no funding for SCAAP for the
following reasons:
--SCAAP does not advance the core mission of the Department of
Justice (DOJ). Since 1995, approximately $3.45 billion has been
distributed to eligible state and local jurisdictions. By
statute, SCAAP funds are unrestricted, and recipient
jurisdictions may use these funds for any lawful state or local
purpose. Expenditures are not limited to correctional or even
criminal justice purposes. Thus, in contrast to other programs
administered by the Department, funds awarded under SCAAP do
not necessarily support efforts to develop the nation's
capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, or
assist crime victims. Further, funds awarded are not linked to
overall performance or evaluation data as is now required for
other DOJ programs.
--Redirecting resources from SCAAP will provide funding for
Congressional and Administration initiatives. These initiatives
include increasing resources available to stem the tide of
illegal immigration as well as the funding of programs such as
OJP'S Southwest Border Initiative (SWBI), a $50 million program
that provides targeted assistance to southwestern state and
local jurisdictions, including those in New Mexico, that
prosecute referred Federal drug cases. The Administration has
already begun to prioritize and move resources among programs
that are competing for scarce federal dollars in order to
ultimately fund those programs that provide the most cost-
effective and direct support to jurisdictions for addressing
pressing national crime problems.
--Finally, since the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) began
administering SCAAP in fiscal year 1995, there has been only
marginal improvement in the technical ability of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to positively identify
those offenders being held in the nation's prisons and jails
who are undocumented aliens. Yet, the number of jurisdictions
claiming they are housing undocumented aliens has increased to
more than 800 applicants as of the fiscal year 2003 cycle. The
vast majority of these applicants will receive some funds, and
many of these awards will be quite small, some falling below
$1,000. Without better individual verification of offender
identity and a clearer link between payments and relieving the
burden of detention costs, this trend toward more jurisdictions
sharing each new appropriation dilutes the impact of these
program funds and fails to address the purpose for which this
program was initiated. That purpose was to help relieve an
unfair financial burden on a limited number of states and
localities that were seriously inundated with undocumented
alien offenders who should have been prevented from crossing
the nation's borders.
In fiscal year 2002, funds distributed to New Mexico under the
SCAAP program totaled approximately $2.33 million of the total of $540
million awarded. Only 14 of New Mexico's 33 counties received awards,
which ranged from $402 to $250,610; the state's award was approximately
$1.77 million. In contrast, more than $1.5 million had been requested
under SWBI by New Mexico jurisdictions through June 2003. More funding
is available, and there will be another funding opportunity to cover
costs incurred in the second half of fiscal year 2003 later this year.
Thus, while the scope and coverage of these two programs are not
identical and not all cases for which payments will be provided will
involve illegal aliens, both the offender populations involved and the
goals of the program are very similar. And, more importantly, for the
state of New Mexico specifically, SWBI will generate proportionally
more funding that will go to directly reimburse local jurisdictions
affected by illegal crime than will SCAAP.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS IN NEW MEXICO
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, the Chief Justice of the
United States Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, and the Chief
Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, Deanell Reece Tacha, have
described the Southwest Border states as being in crisis. This
description is based upon the massive number of cases that each federal
judge currently has on his or her docket. Chief Circuit Judge Tacha
expressed her concern about the District of New Mexico in particular.
The District of New Mexico ranks fifth in the nation in weighted
filings per judgeship. Two weeks ago the Judicial Conference of the
United States asked Congress for 57 new Judgeships, including 3 more
for the District of New Mexico (only Northern California, Eastern
California, Southern Florida, and Eastern New York have need for a
greater number of judgeships).
Based upon the experiences of the U.S. Attorney practicing in this
district, would you agree that the judicial system in the district of
New Mexico is in a state of crisis? What would help to alleviate the
problems that are making the administration of justice so difficult?
Answer. The District of New Mexico has seen a marked increase in
criminal case filings over the last ten years. In fiscal year 1992, 602
criminal cases were filed against 905 defendants. In contrast, during
fiscal year 2002, 2,232 criminal cases were filed against 2,570
defendants. Clearly the heavy workload in this area impacts the federal
judiciary. Increased staffing combined with more efficient case
processing procedures has been highly beneficial to the United States
Attorneys along the Southwest Border. Further refinements of the
court's case processing procedures might have similar benefits for the
courts.
The Las Cruces United States Attorney's Branch Office has an area
of responsibility that includes 15 counties comprising more than 60,000
square miles including a 180-mile border with Mexico. The 180-mile
Mexico/New Mexico border is highly porous, remote, and unpopulated. The
increase in criminal immigration cases has been particularly striking.
In fiscal year 1992, 76 cases were filed involving 92 defendants. In
fiscal year 2002, 1,339 cases were filed against 1,401 defendants.
Virtually 100 percent of the immigration related offenses
prosecuted in Las Cruces are generated by the U.S. Border Patrol, now a
part of the Department of Homeland Security. El Paso Sector Border
Patrol encompasses West Texas and all of New Mexico. In 1993, El Paso
Sector inaugurated an operation called ``Hold the Line.'' The
preliminary concept of ``Hold the Line'' was to move undocumented
immigrant traffic to areas that were less populated and would be more
manageable. This endeavor appears to be continuing successfully.
Undocumented immigrant apprehensions dropped dramatically (72
percent) in El Paso at the initiation of ``Hold the Line'' in fiscal
year 1994. Apprehensions then increased for the next two fiscal years
until the implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibilities Act (IIRIRA) on April 1, 1997.
Though the number of illegal alien apprehensions dramatically
declined after enactment of the IIRIRA, the ``Hold the Line'' stations
that bordered the Rio Grande River continued to apprehend the largest
number of illegal aliens. As time went on, ``Hold the Line'' stations'
apprehensions declined and apprehensions in New Mexico began to
increase. In 1998, Border Patrol stations in the New Mexico sector
began to apprehend more aliens than the El Paso sector stations in
Texas.
The Las Cruces Office expects this trend to continue. As the
enforcement presence remains highly visible in and around central El
Paso and as the Border Patrol's presence continues to escalate in
southern Arizona. The number of aliens apprehended in southern New
Mexico will continue to skyrocket.
Another factor in the continued rise is prosecution cases for the
State of New Mexico is the IDENT system at all the New Mexico Stations
and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
in Deming, New Mexico. These systems identify fugitive aliens and
aliens who are prior deportees and aggravated felons. When the prior
deportees and aggravated felons are located, we are required by law to
federally prosecute these aliens. In the near future the IAFIS system
will be deployed in all the Border Patrol Stations in New Mexico and
will again increase the prosecution load for the USAO in New Mexico.
To put this into context, the El Paso Border Patrol Sector
Prosecutions Program has seen dramatic increases in New Mexico cases
prosecuted. In fiscal year 1999 the average number of cases prosecuted
per month for New Mexico was 53. Currently for fiscal year 2003 the
average number of cases prosecuted per month is 131. That is a 147
percent increase in four years.
There are currently no resident district judges in Las Cruces, even
though more than 70 percent of the criminal cases in the District of
New Mexico are prosecuted here. The active district judges, augmented
by senior district and circuit judges as well as an array of visiting
judges, take turns coming to Las Cruces. A given case can easily pass
to three or four district judges prior to trial. The assignment of two
or more district judges to Las Cruces would help our ability to
appropriately service our caseload.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, I want to congratulate the
Department of Justice for its hard work to ensure that claimants under
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act are receiving claims payments
instead of IOUs as was the case a couple of years ago. I commend the
Department for aggressively implementing language I sponsored in the
fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill that provided ``such
sums as may be necessary'' to pay RECA claims approved by September 30,
2001, to compensate those who sustained injury as a result of the
United States open-air nuclear testing and uranium mining activities in
the 1950's through 1970's.
Will you please give the Subcommittee a status report on this
program?
Answer. The July 2000 Amendments to the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act (RECA) markedly expanded the scope of the Program.
Major changes include new categories of beneficiaries; expansion of
eligible diseases, geographic area, and time period; and a reduction in
the radiation exposure threshold for miners.
It has been nearly three years since the Amendments were enacted.
Since that time, the level of activity has increased dramatically:
--The approval rate increased from 49 percent--before enactment--to
83 percent, since enactment.
--Nearly 9,800 claims have been received since enactment--compared
with some 1,200 claims received in the three fiscal years
preceding the Amendments.
--More than 6,200 claims, valued at over $380 million, have been
approved since enactment--compared with 574 approvals valued at
less than $42 million in the three fiscal years preceding the
Amendments.
Our most current estimates for fiscal year 2003:
WORKLOAD SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 est.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending, Beginning of Year.. 353 728 2,936 2,679
Received.................... 854 3,828 3,416 3,200
Approved.................... 316 1,561 2,807 2,480
Denied...................... 163 59 866 620
Pending, End of Year........ 728 2,936 2,679 2,779
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address this sharp rise in workload, we are doing all we can to
ensure the program is being administered to provide timely and accurate
compensation for all eligible claimants. Currently, there are 20 staff
on board, including 11 claims examiners. With nearly 2,800 claims
pending, each examiner is responsible for an average of 252 claims.
Thus, while the program is able to process a huge volume--some 3,100
projected this fiscal year, the backlog is growing: we will end the
year with a greater number of pending claims than the number pending at
the year's outset.
So that we may reduce the number of pending claims significantly,
the Department seeks Congressional approval to reprogram funds for RECA
administration this fiscal year. In addition, the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget includes an increase of $1 million for RECA
Administrative Expenses. This increase will provide examiners with much
needed support to review claims, assist claimants in providing
information that will complete claims, and perform many of the time-
consuming administrative tasks that detract from the primary mission--
resolving claims.
As you know, the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization
Act (Public Law 107-107) made the Trust Fund a mandatory account and
provided $665 million, setting annual spending caps for 2002-2011. We
applaud Congress' decision to make the RECA Trust Fund mandatory. We
are monitoring spending under the caps and can report the following
with respect to the current status:
--In fiscal year 2002, the cap provided $172 million and the
Department obligated the full amount.
--The fiscal year 2003 cap is $143 million. To date, an average of
$12.3 million has been obligated per month. To stay within the
cap, obligations will have to drop to about $9.5 million per
month for the remainder of this fiscal year.
--No ``IOU's'' will be necessary this fiscal year. However,
compensation for some current claims will be paid from fiscal
year 2004 funds.
Question. Would you please provide for the record an updated
breakdown of the number of claims paid by state and by category of
beneficiary?
Answer. The table at Attachment 1 displays the number of claims
approved through June 11, 2003, by state and by type of claim.
Residents of Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico have been awarded
79 percent of the compensation approved. However, RECA awards have been
made to residents of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Question. I also congratulate the President and the Department for
proposing in the 2002 budget to make payments for claims under RECA an
entitlement. Congress did enact as part of the Defense Authorization
bill, my amendment to make the RECA program a mandatory program. The
Department has $172 million to pay claims in 2002 and $143 million to
pay claims in 2003, and additional amounts in future years.
Will you please give the Subcommittee a status report on the
payment of RECA claims? How many claims has the Department approved and
how much has been spent out of the Trust Fund to pay these claims since
the inception of RECA?
Answer. Through June 11, 2003, a total of 9,588 claims have been
approved, with a value of $631,323,282.
Question. What is the average amount of the claims approved, the
number of claims denied, and the general reason for denial of these
claims?
Answer. RECA award amounts are fixed by statute. Uranium workers
(uranium miners, mill workers, ore transporters) are eligible for a
$100,000 award; onsite participants are eligible for a $75,000 award;
and downwinders are eligible for a $50,000 award. Over the 11-year
history of the Program, the average amount approved is $65,845.
However, since enactment of the Amendments, the average has declined
from $74,000 to $61,000--due to the predominance of downwinder awards.
Through June 11, 2003, the RECA Program has denied 4,866 claims.
Claims are denied if one or more of the eligibility criteria are not
satisfied. For example, uranium worker claims are typically denied in
cases where the documentation does not establish that the individual
contracted an illness specified under the law. Similarly, downwinder
and onsite participant claims are most frequently denied where the
records fail to establish a covered disease or the individual was
either not present in the affected ``downwind'' area or did not
participate in atmospheric weapons testing.
Question. For the record, would you please provide the Subcommittee
with a breakdown of the types of claims approved or disapproved
(childhood leukemia, other downwinder, onsite participants, or uranium
miners), the number of claims currently pending, and the amounts
disbursed by type of claim paid?
Answer. The table on the following page provides the requested
information as of June 11, 2003.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM APRIL 1992-JUNE 11, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Claims
Awards Received Approved Denied Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood Leukemia..................................... $1,200,000 44 24 19 1
Downwinder............................................. 309,170,000 9,723 6,184 1,981 1,558
Onsite Participant..................................... 42,461,782 1,808 589 955 264
Uranium Miner.......................................... 251,391,500 5,096 2,520 1,861 715
Uranium Miller......................................... 21,700,000 419 217 40 162
Ore Transporter........................................ 5,400,000 106 54 10 42
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 631,323,282 17,196 9,588 4,866 2,742
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For my use, would you please provide this same
information specifically for claims from New Mexico, including the
total claims received, the total claims approved, the total claims
denied, and the total claims pending?
Answer. With respect to claims for which the primary claimant
resides in New Mexico, the Department has approved 801 claims, with a
total value of $76,277,799 through June 11, 2003. The following table
provides the requested information.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM: NEW MEXICO APRIL 1992-JUNE 11, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Claims
Awards Received Approved Denied Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood Leukemia.................................. $50,000 1 1 0 0
Downwinder.......................................... 3,300,000 151 66 38 47
Onsite Participant.................................. 993,299 55 14 33 8
Uranium Miner....................................... 66,334,500 1,706 664 753 289
Uranium Miller...................................... 5,300,000 109 53 10 46
Ore Transporter..................................... 300,000 16 3 4 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 76,277,799 2,038 801 838 399
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many claims are projected to be filed and processed
under current law in the upcoming year?
Answer. For fiscal year 2004, we estimate that 2,900 claims will be
filed and 3,100 claims will be processed. Of the 3,100 that may be
processed, at an estimated 2,215 claims would be approved, valued at
$135 million. This assumes that the approval rate will fall from 80
percent in fiscal year 2003 to 71 percent in fiscal year 2004, while
the average value of awards holds at $61,000. Based on these
conservative assumptions, the value of approvals would exceed the $107
million cap by more than $28 million--exclusive of unfunded awards from
the end of fiscal year 2003.
To stay within the $107 million cap set for fiscal year 2004, while
paying for awards made in the final weeks for fiscal year 2003, the
approval rate would have to fall to 48 percent.
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 and regulations?
Answer. In May 2000, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
developed cost estimates for a bill that became the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106-245). CBO roughly
estimated that about 15,600 claims might be filed over the 22-year
lifetime of the Act. CBO projected that about 11,700 claims would be
filed in the first five years--or, roughly 2,340 per year. These
estimates appear to be low. In less than three years, nearly 9,800
claims have been filed--more than 3,200 annually. Based on a three-year
track record with the expanded program, we have developed detailed
projections through fiscal year 2005. The following chart includes
these projections, along with our ``guesstimates'' regarding the fiscal
year 2006-2011 period--bearing in mind that the farther we delve into
the future, the greater is the uncertainty we attach to our estimates.
These projections suggest that (1) more people are responding more
quickly then CBO anticipated and (2) the amount that may be approved in
a given year may exceed existing caps.
OUT YEAR WORKLOAD AND FUNDING ESTIMATES
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending, Beginning of Year...................................... 2,779 2,579 2,179
Received........................................................ 2,900 2,300 5,200
Approved........................................................ 2,215 1,625 3,235
Denied.......................................................... 885 1,075 3,240
Pending, End of Year............................................ 2,579 2,179 904
Value of Approvals.............................................. $135 $99 $197
Public Law 107-107 Cap.......................................... $107 $65 $168
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 1--AWARDS APPROVED BY STATE AND BY CATEGORY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onsite Uranium Uranium Ore Total Value of
Downwinder Participant Miner Miller Transporter Awards Awards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................... 4 9 3 ........... ........... 16 $1,081,344
Alaska.................................................... 10 1 7 ........... ........... 18 $1,275,000
Arizona................................................... 2,386 38 292 10 3 2,729 $152,502,016
Arkansas.................................................. 15 5 12 2 ........... 34 $2,495,490
California................................................ 198 80 33 1 1 313 $19,135,196
Colorado.................................................. 67 11 869 87 28 1,062 $102,575,000
Connecticut............................................... 1 2 ........... ........... ........... 3 $200,000
Delaware.................................................. 1 3 ........... ........... ........... 4 $275,000
D.C....................................................... 2 1 ........... ........... ........... 3 $175,000
Florida................................................... 12 35 6 ........... ........... 53 $3,692,507
Georgia................................................... 5 8 1 ........... ........... 14 $927,181
Hawaii.................................................... 3 16 1 ........... 1 21 $1,473,334
Idaho..................................................... 60 8 22 1 ........... 91 $5,870,000
Illinois.................................................. 5 10 6 ........... ........... 21 $1,585,511
Indiana................................................... 3 3 9 ........... ........... 15 $1,275,000
Iowa...................................................... 3 4 3 1 ........... 11 $822,503
Kansas.................................................... 12 6 3 ........... ........... 21 $1,350,000
Kentucky.................................................. 1 4 1 ........... ........... 6 $395,319
Louisiana................................................. ........... 8 ........... ........... ........... 8 $549,170
Maine..................................................... ........... 2 ........... ........... ........... 2 $150,000
Maryland.................................................. 10 19 1 ........... ........... 30 $1,945,180
Massachusetts............................................. 1 6 ........... ........... ........... 7 $500,000
Michigan.................................................. 4 8 ........... ........... ........... 12 $800,000
Minnesota................................................. 8 6 2 1 ........... 17 $1,150,000
Mississippi............................................... ........... 1 1 1 ........... 3 $275,000
Missouri.................................................. 11 7 12 1 ........... 31 $2,375,000
Montana................................................... 15 4 8 1 ........... 28 $1,909,872
Nebraska.................................................. 4 3 6 ........... ........... 13 $1,025,000
Nevada.................................................... 619 94 45 2 1 761 $42,775,000
New Hampshire............................................. 1 1 1 ........... ........... 3 $225,000
New Jersey................................................ 2 3 ........... ........... ........... 5 $325,000
New Mexico................................................ 67 14 664 53 3 801 $76,277,799
New York.................................................. 9 9 1 ........... ........... 19 $1,212,608
North Carolina............................................ 3 10 4 ........... ........... 17 $1,253,241
North Dakota.............................................. 1 ........... ........... 1 ........... 2 $150,000
Ohio...................................................... 2 6 3 2 ........... 13 $1,050,000
Oklahoma.................................................. 13 4 24 2 ........... 43 $3,509,500
Oregon.................................................... 41 10 23 ........... ........... 74 $5,097,234
Pennsylvania.............................................. 7 10 ........... ........... ........... 17 $1,072,054
Rhode Island.............................................. ........... 2 ........... ........... ........... 2 $150,000
South Carolina............................................ 1 5 ........... ........... ........... 6 $411,328
South Dakota.............................................. 2 2 5 4 1 14 $1,235,174
Tennessee................................................. 7 8 1 ........... ........... 16 $981,133
Texas..................................................... 40 20 17 2 ........... 79 $5,298,097
Utah...................................................... 2,473 35 350 37 13 2,908 $165,719,850
Vermont................................................... ........... 1 1 ........... ........... 2 $175,000
Virginia.................................................. 9 17 ........... ........... ........... 26 $1,656,302
Washington................................................ 42 20 26 1 1 90 $6,278,077
West Virginia............................................. ........... 1 22 ........... ........... 23 $2,275,000
Wisconsin................................................. ........... 7 1 ........... ........... 8 $561,262
Wyoming................................................... 27 2 34 6 2 71 $5,700,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 6,207 589 2,520 216 54 9,586 $631,173,282
Canada.................................................... 1 ........... ........... 1 ........... 2 $150,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................... 6,208 589 2,520 217 54 9,588 $631,323,282
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MENTAL HEALTH COURTS
Question. Attorney General Ashcroft, as you are aware, the fiscal
year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill contained $3 million for Mental
Health Courts. The funding is the result of the Americas Law
Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act, enacted into law three years
ago. The Act authorized the creation of Mental Health Courts with
separate dockets to handle cases involving individuals with a mental
illness.
The specific thrust of Mental Health Courts 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 sixteen 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. Mental Health Courts can help alleviate overcrowding, to a
degree, by employing problem-solving approaches that use alternative
sentencing options to reduce the demands on correctional institutions
while offering approaches that address the underlying issues of these
mentally ill offenders. These courts use several critical elements as
part of their comprehensive case management approach, such as complete
individualized mental assessments as soon as possible after interface
with law enforcement, judicial supervision, immediate mental health
services as needed, and a plan for longer-term services. They can
alleviate prison overcrowding by segregating a population whose minor
criminal misbehavior is likely to be a function of their illness and
providing the treatment they need. In doing so, it is hoped that
communities with mental health courts will see reduced recidivism, and
a reduction in the recurring costs to the system of continued criminal
behavior by this population.
This approach ensures a coordinated response between the service
providers and community supervision that reinforces accountability and
access to the critical services needed for the offenders to gain
stability in their mental health and uses sanctions and incentives that
are meaningful to the mentally ill offenders to help keep them crime
free.
Question. What steps are being taken by DOJ to distribute the $3
million appropriated to implement Americas Law Enforcement and Mental
Health Project Act?
Answer. The competition for the fiscal year 2003 funds has taken
place. The Bureau of Justice Assistance received 44 applications. The
peer review process is underway, and 14 awards are expected to be made
by the end of this fiscal year. These 14 sites will be in addition to
the 23 sites awarded during the first cycle (fiscal year 2002 funding).
Site awards in both cycles were for up to $150,000 each, varying
according to the applicant's request and budget clearances, and have
grant periods of 18 months. Additional funding will be used for
technical support. An evaluator is assessing and documenting a sample
of the courts in sites funded with fiscal year 2002 resources.
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. Approximately $500,000 from the initial earmark in fiscal
year 2002 was used to support non-site work related to examining the
mental health courts approach. The Crime and Justice Research Institute
received a grant to provide an update of an overview of the issues
related to mental health courts and reported in May 2002 in Emerging
Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload. The
Bureau of Justice Assistance also funded the Criminal Justice/Mental
Health Consensus Project. This national scope, 2-year effort prepared
specific recommendations for local, state and federal policymakers and
criminal justice and mental health professionals on how to improve the
criminal justice system response to people with mental illness. The
Council of State Governments coordinated this effort, working with the
Association of State Correctional Administrators, Bazelon Center for
Mental Health Law, Center for Behavioral Health, Justice and Public
Policy, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors,
Police Executive Research Forum, and the Pretrial Services Resource
Center.
This year, approximately $750,000 will be set aside for technical
assistance support to the sites, primarily to bring professionals
involved in the courts to the funded sites. It is anticipated that
several organizations will be involved, each bringing to the table
expertise in reaching constituencies in different areas, including law
enforcement, prosecutor, judges, community correctional personnel, and
treatment coordinators. This technical assistance will be available to
the courts selected and, to the extent feasible, to other jurisdictions
attempting this approach without federal funding. Courts will be
assisted at least through the initial startup phase.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
VILLAGE OF CHICKALOON AND VILLAGE FORESTRY DEPARTMENT OF ALASKA
Question. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
was created to meet the needs of law enforcement in Native American
Communities. According to DOJ records, the Village of Chickaloon and
the Village of Forestry Department (of Alaska) have received
$1,473,250.00 in funding from COPS from 1994-2002. In addition, eight
officers have been funded through COPS. However, the Village of
Chickaloon is not a sovereign entity and the State Troopers monitor the
Village. Please describe each grant proposal submitted by the Village
of Chickaloon and explain how each grant proposal meets the
requirements for funding under the COPS program.
Answer. The Village of Chickaloon and the Chickaloon Village of
Forestry Department have received a total of 8 grant awards, totaling
$1,723,238, from the COPS Office.
The first award to the Village of Chickaloon, in 1995, was awarded
through COPS FAST program. The FAST program provided jurisdictions
serving fewer than 150,000 persons to hire new officers to engage in
community policing. The Village of Chickaloon was eligible to apply
under the FAST program, along with other state, local, and tribal law
enforcement agencies serving populations less than 150,000.
The following seven awards, to the Village of Chickaloon and the
Chickaloon Village of Forestry Department, were awarded through COPS
Tribal Resources Grant Program. Under this program federally recognized
tribes may apply to receive funding for training and equipment for new
and existing officers as well as salary and benefits for new community
policing officers. As a federally recognized tribe, Chickaloon was
eligible to apply for federal assistance through COPS Tribal Resources
Grant Program.
Details of the eight grants are provided in the following answers
as well as in the supplemental documentation provided.
Question. For each grant given to the Village of Chickaloon under
the COPS program, detail the funds given for each year and describe the
purpose of each grant.
Answer. The Village of Chickaloon and the Chickaloon Village of
Forestry Department have received a total of 8 grant awards, totaling
$1,723,238, from the COPS Office.
1. The Village of Chickaloon was awarded one full-time position
through the COPS FAST grant program (COPSFAST). COPSFAST provided
funding to jurisdictions serving populations of less than 50,000. The
program provided funding for the payment of salaries and approved
fringe benefits for sworn entry-level officers, lateral transfers, or
rehired officers. The FAST grant provided a maximum federal
contribution of 75 percent of the salary and benefits for each officer
position over three years, up to $75,000 per officer. Chickaloon's FAST
grant, which began March 1, 1995, and expired August 31, 1998, totaled
$75,000.
2. The Village of Chickaloon was awarded two full-time positions
through the Universal Hiring Program (UHP). The UHP grant provided
funding for the payment of salaries and approved fringe benefits for
newly hired entry-level officer positions with a maximum federal
contribution of 75 percent of the salary and benefits for each officer
position over three year, up to $75,000 per officer position, unless a
waiver of the matching local funds was granted. Chickaloon's UHP grant,
which began December 1, 1995, and expired December 31, 2000, totaled
$252,084--the grantee received a full waiver of the local match.
3. The Village of Chickaloon was awarded equipment and training
through the Tribal Resources Grant Program 1999 (TRGP99), the specifics
of the departments's award are detailed in the attached Final Funding
Memo. The TRGP99 grant provided funding to federally recognized tribes
for salaries and benefits for newly hired entry-level officer
positions, and training and equipment for new and existing with a
maximum federal contribution of 75 percent of the approved costs,
unless a waiver of the local matching funds is granted, up to $75,000
per officer for salary and benefits, $3,000 for background
investigations, $1,200 to $6,000 per type of training, $3,000 per
officer for basic equipment, $75,000 per department for technology,
and/or $20,000 per vehicle. Chickaloon's TRGP99 grant, which began
September 1, 1999, and expired May 31, 2001, totaled $90,810--the
grantee received a full waiver of the local match.
4. The Village of Chickaloon was awarded equipment and training
through the Tribal Resources Grant Program 2000 (TRGP00), the specifics
of the department's award are detailed in the attached Final Funding
Memo. The TRGP00 grant provided funding to federally recognized tribes
for salaries and benefits for newly hired entry-level officers
positions, and training and equipment for new and existing officers.
The TRGP00 grant provided a maximum federal contribution of 75 percent
of the approved costs, unless a waiver of the local matching funds is
granted, up to $75,000 per officer for salary and benefits, $3,000 for
background investigations, $1,200 to $6,000 per type of training,
$3,000 per officer for basic equipment, $75,000 per department for
technology, and/or $20,000 per vehicle. Chickaloon's TRGP00 grant,
which began August 1, 2000, and expired on July 31, 2003, totaled
$14,251--the grantee received a full waiver of the local match.
5. The Village of Chickaloon was awarded two full-time positions
through the Tribal Resources Grant Program 2000 (TRGP00). The TRGP00
program parameters are detailed in the above paragraph (#4).
Chickaloon's TRGP00 grant, which began August 1, 2000, and is scheduled
to expire January 31, 2005, totals $281,172--the grantee received a
full waiver of the local match.
6. The Chickaloon Village Forestry Department was awarded equipment
and training through the Tribal Resources Grant Program 2000 (TRGP00),
the specifics of the department's award are detailed in the attached
Final Funding Memo. The TRGP00 grant provided funding to federally
recognized tribes for salaries and benefits for newly hired entry-level
officer positions, and training and equipment for new and existing
officers. The TRGP00 grant provided a maximum federal contribution of
75 percent of the approved costs, unless a waiver of the local matching
funds is granted, up to $75,000 per officer for salary and benefits,
$3,000 for background investigations, $1,200 to $6,000 per type of
training, $3,000 per officer for basic equipment, $75,000 per
department for technology, and/or $20,000 per vehicle. Chickaloon
Village Forestry Department's TRGP00 grant, which began August 1, 2000,
and is scheduled to expire July 31, 2003, totaled $207,177--the grantee
received a full waiver of the local match.
7. The Chickaloon Village Forestry Department was awarded two full-
time positions through the Tribal Resources Grant Program 2000
(TRGP00). The TRGP00 program parameters are detailed in the above
paragraph (#6). Chickaloon Village Forestry Department's TRGP00 grant,
which began August 1, 2000, and is scheduled to expire January 31,
2005, totals $421,756--the grantee received a full waiver of the local
match.
8. The Village of Chickaloon received funding through the Tribal
Hiring Renewal Grant Program (THRGP) to renew two full-time positions.
The THRGP grant provides funding to federally recognized tribes that
were unable to retain the previously awarded COPS-funded positions with
tribal, state, or BIA funding and have received an exemption from the
COPS Office's retention requirement. The THRGP grant is a two-year
grant, which funds fourth and fifth year salaries and benefits for the
renewal of COPS-funded police officer positions, there is not a local
match requirement for this program. Chickaloon's grant, which began
September 1, 2002, and is scheduled to expire August 31, 2004, totals
$249,988.
Question. Has the Village of Chickaloon submitted any periodic
reports to the COPS office in Washington regarding the use of the grant
funds and/or the effectiveness of the grant funds? If so, detail the
results of said studies?
Answer. All COPS grantees, including the Village of Chickaloon, are
required to submit programmatic progress reports and quarterly
financial status reports. The COPS Office has not conducted an on site
visit to the Village of Chickaloon, however COPS is aware of their
program progress through the grantee's submission of programmatic
progress reports and quarterly financial status reports.
Question. Has the DOJ conducted any studies regarding the effects
of the COPS programs in Alaskan communities? If so, detail the results
of said reports.
Answer. The COPS Office has not funded a study to evaluate the
effect of COPS grants specifically in Alaskan communities. However,
independent evaluations of COPS programs have been conducted by the
University of Nebraska and the Urban Institute to evaluate the effect
of COPS funding.
Question. Please submit a copy of each application received from
Chickaloon or its Forestry Department.
Answer. The COPS Office has submitted a binder containing grant
information received from the Village of Chickaloon and the Chickaloon
Village Forestry Department.
Question. Have any official (or officials) of your Department
visited Chickaloon?
Answer. No, the COPS Office has not conducted a formal site visit
to the Village of Chickaloon.
Question. Did your office receive any letters of support for the
applications of Chickaloon or the Department of Forestry pertaining to
any applications?
Answer. The COPS Office did not receive any letters of support for
the Chickaloon or the Department of Forestry applications.
Question. Please provide a copy of any report pertaining to
Chickaloon received by your office from any official source Federal or
state pertaining to Chickaloon's eligibility for these grants, or the
need for the grants, or the use of these grants.
Answer. The need for federal funding is demonstrated in each of the
eight applications requesting federal assistance. Under COPS statutory
authority and programmatic guidelines, the Village of Chickaloon and
the Chickaloon Village Forestry Department were eligible for the grant
funding received from the COPS Office. The Village of Chickaloon is a
federally recognized tribe according to the Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
SAFE EXPLOSIVES ACT
Question. It is my understanding that the Safe Explosives Act,
enacted last year, requires tighter security for explosives materials
and increased security measures for purchasers and possessors of
explosives and that this new law will assist the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in helping to ensure that terrorists and
criminals do not have access to explosives.
In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and Related
Agencies on March 20, 2003, Acting ATF Director Bradley Buckles stated
that the Safe Explosives Act represents a significant additional
workload for ATF.
I understand that, currently, the initial processing and issuance
or denial of explosive licenses or permits is handled out of ATF's
National Licensing Center in Atlanta, Georgia, which also handles the
processing of Federal Firearms Licenses and is, consequently,
overburdened, as well as overcrowded.
In addition, Mr. Buckles stated in his testimony that the fiscal
year 2004 budget request of $10,000,000 for the continuation of the
implementation of the Safe Explosives Act ``* * * would continue the
implementation of the Act and specifically, would be used to create the
National Explosives Licensing Center (NELC) in an existing ATF facility
in Martinsburg, West Virginia * * *.''
I fully support the establishment of the NELC at the ATF facility
in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
Can you provide more details regarding the creation of the National
Explosives Licensing Center (NELC) in West Virginia, including a
detailed timeframe and cost estimate, including the costs of
renovations needed to accommodate the NELC at the Martinsburg ATF
facility, space and equipment needs, as well as the number of federal
and contractor personnel that would be employed at the center?
Answer. The requirements of the Safe Explosives Act (SEA) became
fully effective on May 24, 2003. In part, the SEA increased the number
of entities required to obtain an explosives permit from ATF. Also, the
SEA enhanced the license/permit qualification requirements to include
the submission of additional documentation (fingerprints and
photographs) of individuals responsible for explosives operations and
additional identifying information for employee possessors of
explosives. This additional information is needed so that ATF can
conduct, with the assistance of the FBI, more thorough background
checks of these individuals. This increase in responsibility resulted
in a need for a National Explosives Licensing Center (NELC). Since ATF
currently houses the National Tracing Center in West Virginia and space
was available at this location, the proposal was made to also house the
NELC at the same location in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
Renovations needed at the West Virginia site would not start any
earlier than fiscal year 2004 and span into fiscal year 2005 due to
other renovations taking place at the site. A minimal amount of funds
(approximately $268,000) have been allocated in fiscal year 2003 for
this purpose of filling two full time positions. Approximately $4
million is estimated to establish the NELC in West Virginia. The
following is a breakdown of the $4 million:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer system development/enhancement................. $545,000
15 contractors.......................................... 771,680
16 full time positions.................................. 1,258,151
2 pc moves.............................................. 144,000
Space buildout/renovations/furniture.................... \1\ 1,000,000
Annualization of 2 positions funded 2003................ 268,246
---------------
Grand total....................................... 3,987,077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recently revised to reflect current costs.
The NELC in West Virginia would employ 18 federal employees and 15
contractors.
Question. Does the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
provide sufficient funding to establish a fully operational NELC? If
not, what additional funds would be needed in fiscal year 2004 for this
purpose?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
$10 million for implementing the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act.
A portion of this funding will be used to establish the NELC in West
Virginia.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
USA PATRIOT ACT
Question. Last month, when you testified before the Judiciary
Committee, you were asked about a secret bill entitled the ``Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003,'' which was leaked to the press as a
sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act. You responded, ``there has been no bill
decided on, no proposal decided on.'' That was on March 4th. Three
weeks later, a Department spokesperson told the Village Voice that the
bill was coming soon, and that it ``will be filling in the holes'' of
the PATRIOT Act.
When will the Department share a draft of this bill with Congress?
Answer. The primary mission of the Department of Justice is to
protect the American people from the threat of terrorist attacks, while
respecting the constitutional rights and liberties that the birthright
of every American. Department staff constantly are thinking about new
ways to detect and prevent terrorism. In that process, Department staff
continually ask our prosecutors and investigators in the field what
tools they need in the fight against terrorism. That process of
considering ideas is continuing. It would be inappropriate to comment
on the status of the internal deliberations or to speculate about any
future decisions. However, if the Administration moves forward with
such a proposal, the Department will consult with Members of Congress
and their staff at an appropriate time. If and when a final proposal is
approved by the Administration, we will work closely with Members of
the Congress and their staff in their review of the proposal.
Question. What legislative ``holes'' can we expect this bill to
address?
Answer. Please see the answer above.
PRIVACY ACT EXEMPTIONS
Question. Please provide a detailed description of each of the
three databases affected by the new rule, i.e., the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC), Central Records System (CRS), and National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), including the types
of records they contain and where these records originate.
Answer. These databases are described in the following notices,
published by the FBI in accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
552a(e)(4)(B) and (C). Each notice details the organization and
categorization of the individuals and information in the database.
--National Crime Information Center (NCIC), 64 Federal Register 52343
(Sept. 28, 1999);
--Central Records System (CRS), 63 Federal Register 8659 (Feb. 20,
1998) and 66 Federal Register 17200 (March 29, 2001);
--National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), 58
Federal Register 51887 (Oct. 5, 1993);
--Blanket Routine Uses (BRU) Applicable to More Than One FBI Privacy
Act System of Records (JUSTICE/FBI-BRU), 66 Federal Register
33558 (June 22, 2001).
Each database is summarized below. Copies of the Privacy Act
notices are enclosed.
The NCIC system of records provides a computerized database for
ready access by a criminal justice agency making an inquiry. It
includes information on fugitives, missing persons, members of violent
criminal gangs, members of terrorist organizations, and other persons
of interest to law enforcement. The database also includes records on
stolen property, vehicles, and guns. The attached Privacy Act notice
provides an exhaustive list of the available data. The NCIC system
provides prompt disclosure of information in the system from other
criminal justice agencies about crimes and criminals.
The CRS maintains the FBI's investigative, personnel, applicant,
and administrative case files. This system consists of one numerical
sequence of subject matter files and an alphabetical index to the case
files. The case file classifications used by the FBI in its basic
filing system pertain primarily to Federal violations over which the
FBI has investigative jurisdiction. The case file classifications
include personnel, applicant, and administrative matters to facilitate
information retrieval. As a part of the NCAVC, the Violent Crime
Apprehensive Program (VICAP) maintains investigation reports on all
forms of solved and unsolved violent crimes. These violent crimes
include, but are not limited to, acts or attempted acts of murder,
kidnapping, incendiary arson or bombing, rape, physical torture, sexual
trauma, or evidence of violent forms of death. VICAP records include,
but are not limited to, crime scene descriptions, victim and offender
descriptive data, laboratory reports, criminal history records, court
records, news media references, crime scene photographs, and
statements. The data in the system consists of homicide, missing
person, unidentified dead, sexual assault, and other criminal cases.
State and local law enforcement agencies enter their case information,
consisting primarily of victim information, offender information, and a
description of the event, into the national database. In addition to
entering data, law enforcement personnel can retrieve their own cases,
run reports using their own data, and request query against the
national database.
Copies of the Privacy Act system notices listed above for the NCIC,
CRS, and NCAVC are attached.
[From the Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 187, September 28, 1999]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 170-99]
Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of Modified Systems of Records
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is given that
the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is
modifying the following system of records which was last published in
the Federal Register on April 20, 1995 (60 FR 19775):
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), JUSTICE/FBI-001.
Also being modified is the following system of records which was
last published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1996 (61 FR
6386):
Fingerprint Identification Records Systems (FIRS), JUSTICE/FBI-009.
The FBI has made revisions to these systems of records to update
information about these systems, make editorial adjustments to existing
language, confirm in clearer language the categories of agencies that
participate in the exchange of records through these systems, and add
three new routine uses for both systems. A brief description of these
changes is provided below.
The two systems of records are being modified to update the
location of the systems and denote the exact street address of the
system manager. Both notices are also being revised to clarify existing
language through minor editorial adjustments and to confirm in clearer
language the authorized participation in these systems, and the
availability of system records, to tribal, foreign, and international
agencies, in addition to local, state, and federal agencies. Three
routine uses have been added to allow disclosure of information
maintained in these systems: To criminal justice agencies to conduct
background checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS); to noncriminal justice government agencies, subject to
appropriate controls, performing criminal justice dispatching functions
or data processing/information services for a criminal justice
dispatching functions or data processing/information services for a
criminal justice agency; and to a private entity, subject to
appropriate controls and under a specific agreement with an authorized
governmental agency to perform an administration of criminal justice
function (privatization). (In addition to the above changes, the FBI is
currently reviewing additional changes to better describe new
capabilities and practices, to be promulgated in a future notice.)
Revisions to 28 CFR parts 0, 16, 20 and 50 which underlie these changes
are being implemented in the Rules section of today's Federal Register.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a (e)(4) and (11)) requires that the
public be given 30 days in which to comment on any new or intended uses
of information in a system of records. In addition, OMB, which has
oversight responsibilities under the Act, requires that OMB and the
Congress be given 40 days in which to review major changes to the
system.
Therefore, the public, OMB, and the Congress are invited to submit
written comments to Mary E. Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and
Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice,
1400 National Place, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with Privacy Act requirements (5 U.S.C. 552a(r)), the
Department of Justice has provided a report on the modified system to
OMB and the Congress.
Dated: July 27, 1999.
Stephen R. Colgate,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
JUSTICE/FBI 001
System name:
National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
System location:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV
26306.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
A. Wanted Persons:
1. Individuals for whom federal warrants are outstanding.
2. Individuals who have committed or have been identified with an
offense which is classified as a felony or serious misdemeanor under
the existing penal statutes of the jurisdiction originating the entry
and for whom a felony or misdemeanor warrant has been issued with
respect to the offense which was the basis of the entry. Probation and
parole violators meeting the foregoing criteria.
3. A ``Temporary Felony Want'' may be entered when a law
enforcement agency has need to take prompt action to establish a
``want'' entry for the apprehension of a person who has committed, or
the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has committed, a felony
and who may seek refuge by fleeing across jurisdictional boundaries and
circumstances preclude the immediate procurement of a felony warrant. A
``Temporary Felony Want'' shall be specifically identified as such and
subject to verification and support by a proper warrant within 48 hours
following the entry of a temporary want. The agency originating the
``Temporary Felony Want'' shall be responsible for subsequent
verification or re-entry of a permanent want.
4. Juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent and who have
escaped or absconded from custody, even though no arrest warrants were
issued. Juveniles who have been charged with the commission of a
delinquent act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, and who
have fled from the state where the act was committed.
5. Individuals who have committed or have been identified with an
offense committed in a foreign country, which would be a felony if
committed in the United States, and for whom a warrant of arrest is
outstanding and for which act an extradition treaty exists between the
United States and that country.
6. Individuals who have committed or have been identified with an
offense committed in Canada and for whom a Canada-Wide Warrant has been
issued which meets the requirements of the Canada-U.S. Extradition
Treaty, 18 U.S.C. 3184.
B. Individuals who have been charged with serious and/or
significant offenses:
1. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and whose criminal
history record information has been obtained.
2. Violent Felons: Persons with three or more convictions for a
violent felony or serious drug offense as defined by 18 U.S.C. 924(e).
C. Missing Persons:
1. A person of any age who is missing and who is under proven
physical/mental disability or is senile, thereby subjecting that person
or others to personal and immediate danger.
2. A person of any age who is missing under circumstances
indicating that the disappearance was not voluntary.
3. A person of any age who is missing under circumstances
indicating that that person's physical safety may be in danger.
4. A person of any age who is missing after a catastrophe.
5. A person who is missing and declared unemancipated as defined by
the laws of the person's state of residence and does not meet any of
the entry criteria set forth in 1-4 above.
D. Individuals designed by the U.S. Secret Service as posing a
potential danger to the President and/or other authorized protectees.
E. Members of Violent Criminal Gangs: Individuals about whom
investigation has developed sufficient information to establish
membership in a particular violent criminal gang by either:
1. Self admission at the time of arrest or incarceration, or
2. Any two of the following criteria:
a. Identified as a gang member by a reliable informant;
b. Identified as a gang member by an informant whose information
has been corroborated;
c. Frequents a gang's area, associates with known members, and/or
affects gang dress, tattoos, or hand signals;
d. Has been arrested multiple times with known gang members for
offenses consistent with gang activity; or
e. Self admission (other than at the time of arrest or
incarceration).
F. Members of Terrorist Organizations: Individuals about whom
investigation has developed sufficient information to establish
membership in a particular terrorist organization using the same
criteria listed above in paragraph E, items 1 and 2 a-e, as they apply
to members of terrorist organizations rather than members of violent
criminal gangs.
G. Unidentified Persons:
1. Any unidentified deceased person.
2. Any person who is living, but whose identify has not been
ascertained (e.g., infant, amnesia victim).
3. Any unidentified catastrophe victim.
4. Body parts when a body has been dismembered.
Categories of records in the system:
A. Stolen Vehicle File:
1. Stolen vehicles.
2. Vehicles wanted in conjunction with felonies or serious
misdemeanors.
3. Stolen vehicle parts including certificates of origin or title.
B. Stolen License Plate File.
C. Stolen Boat File.
D. Stolen Gun File:
1. Stolen guns.
2. Recovered guns, when ownership of which has not been
established.
E. Stolen Article File.
F. Securities File:
1. Serially numbered stolen, embezzled, or counterfeited
securities.
2. ``Securities'' for present purposes of this file are currency
(e.g., bills, bank notes) and those documents or certificates which
generally are considered to be evidence of debt (e.g., bonds,
debentures, notes) or ownership of property (e.g., common stock,
preferred stock), and documents which represent subscription rights,
warrants and which are of the types traded in the securities exchanges
in the United States, except for commodities futures. Also included are
warehouse receipts, travelers checks and money orders.
G. Wanted Person File: Described in ``Categories of individuals
covered by the system: A. Wanted Persons, 1-4.''
H. Foreign Fugitive File: Identification data regarding persons who
are fugitives from foreign countries, who are described in ``Categories
of individuals covered by the system: A. Wanted Persons, 5 and 6.''
I. Interstate Identification Index File: A cooperative federal-
state program for the interstate exchange of criminal history record
information for the purpose of facilitating the interstate exchange of
such information among criminal justice agencies: Described in
``Categories of individuals covered by the system: B. 1.''
J. Identification records regarding persons enrolled in the United
States Marshals Service Witness Security Program who have been charged
with serious and/or significant offenses. Described in ``Categories of
individuals covered by the system: B.''
K. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) Violent Felon
File: Described in ``Categories of individuals covered by the system:
B.2.''
L. Missing Person File: Described in ``Categories of individuals
covered by the system: C. Missing Persons.''
M. U.S. Secret Service Protective File: Described in ``Categories
of individuals covered by the system: D.''
N. Violent Criminal Gang File: A cooperative federal-state program
for the interstate exchange of criminal gang information. For the
purpose of this file, a ``gang'' is defined as a group of three or more
persons with a common interest, bond, or activity characterized by
criminal delinquent conduct. Described in ``Categories of individuals
covered by the system: E. Members of Violent Criminal Gangs.''
O. Terrorist File: A cooperative federal-state program for the
exchange of information about terrorist organizations and individuals.
For the purposes of this file, ``terrorism'' is defined as activities
that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state or
would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of
the United States or any states, which appear to be intended to:
1. Intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion, or
3. Affect the conduct of a government by crimes or kidnaping.
Described in ``Categories of individuals covered by the system: F.
Members of Terrorist Organizations.''
P. Unidentified Person File: Described in ``Categories of
individuals covered by the system: G. Unidentified Persons.''
Authority for maintenance of the system:
The system is established and maintained in accordance with 28
U.S.C. 534; 28 CFR part 20; Department of Justice Appropriation Act,
1973, Pub. L. 92-544, 86 Stat. 1115; Securities Acts Amendment of 1975,
Pub. L. 94-29, 89 Stat. 97; and 18 U.S.C. 924 (e). Exec. Order No.
10450, 3 CFR (1974).
Purpose(s):
The purpose for maintaining the NCIC system of records is to
provide a computerized data base for ready access by a criminal justice
agency making an inquiry and for prompt disclosure of information in
the system from other criminal justice agencies about crimes and
criminals. This information assists authorized agencies in criminal
justice objectives, such as apprehending fugitives, locating missing
persons, locating and returning stolen property, as well as in the
protection of the law enforcement officers encountering the individuals
described in the system.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including
categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
Data in NCIC files is exchanged with and for the official use of
authorized officials of the federal government, the states, cities,
penal and other institutions, and certain foreign governments. The data
is exchanged most frequently, but not exclusively, through NCIC lines
to federal criminal justice agencies, criminal justice agencies in the
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Possessions,
U.S. Territories, and certain authorized foreign and international
criminal justice agencies. Criminal history data is disseminated to
non-criminal justice agencies for use in connection with licensing for
local/state employment or other uses, but only where such dissemination
is authorized by federal or state statute and approved by the Attorney
General of the United States.
Data in NCIC files, other than the information described in
``Categories of records in the system: I, J, K, M, N, and O'' is
disseminated to:
(1) A nongovernmental agency or subunit thereof which allocates a
substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal
justice, whose regularly employed peace officers have full police
powers pursuant to state law and have complied with the minimum
employment standards of governmentally employed police officers as
specified by state statute;
(2) A noncriminal justice governmental department of motor vehicle
or driver's license registry established by a statute, which provides
vehicle registration and driver record information to criminal justice
agencies;
(3) A governmental regional dispatch center, established by a state
statute, resolution, ordinance or Executive order, which provides
communications services to criminal justice agencies; and
(4) The National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), a nongovernmental
nonprofit agency which acts as a national clearinghouse for information
on stolen vehicles and offers free assistance to law enforcement
agencies concerning automobile thefts, identification and recovery of
stolen vehicles.
Disclosures of information from this system, as described in (1)
through (4) above, are for the purpose of providing information to
authorized agencies to facilitate the apprehension of fugitives, the
location of missing persons, the location and/or return of stolen
property, or similar criminal justice objectives.
Information on missing children, missing adults who were reported
missing while children, and unidentified living and deceased persons
may be disclosed to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC). The NCMEC is a nongovernmental, nonprofit, federally
funded corporation, serving as a national resource and technical
assistance clearinghouse focusing on missing and exploited children.
Information is disclosed to NCMEC to assist it in its efforts to
provide technical assistance and education to parents and local
governments regarding the problems of missing and exploited children,
and to operate a nationwide missing children hotline to permit members
of the public to telephone the Center from anywhere in the United
States with information about a missing child.
System records may be disclosed to criminal justice agencies for
the conduct of background checks under the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS).
System records may be disclosed to noncriminal justice governmental
agencies performing criminal justice dispatching functions or data
processing/information services for criminal justice agencies.
System records may be disclosed to private contractors pursuant to
a specific agreement with a criminal justice agency or a noncriminal
justice governmental agency performing criminal justice dispatching
functions or data processing/information services for criminal justice
agencies to provide services for the administration of criminal justice
pursuant to that agreement. The agreement must incorporate a security
addendum approved by the Attorney General of the United States, which
shall specifically authorize access to criminal history record
information, limit the use of the information to the purposes for which
it is provided, ensure the security and confidentiality of the
information, provide for sanctions, and contain such other provisions
as the Attorney General may require. The power and authority of the
Attorney General hereunder shall be exercised by the FBI Director (or
the Director's designee).
In addition, information may be released to the news media and the
public pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of
the specific information in the context of a particular case would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
System records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress or staff
acting on the member's behalf when the member or staff requests the
information on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is
the subject of the record; and,
System records may be disclosed to the National Archives and
Records Administration and the General Services Administration for
records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44
U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing,
retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Information maintained in the NCIC system is stored electronically
for use in a computer environment.
Retrievability:
On line access to data in NCIC is achieved by using the following
search descriptors:
A. Stolen Vehicle File:
1. Vehicle identification number;
2. Owner applied number;
3. License plate number;
4. NCIC number (unique number assigned by NCIC computer to each
NCIC record.)
B. Stolen License Plate File:
1. License plate number;
2. NCIC number.
C. Stolen Boat File:
1. Registration document number;
2. Hull serial number;
3. Owner applied number;
4. NCIC number.
D. Stolen Gun File:
1. Serial number of gun;
2. NCIC number.
E. Stolen Article File:
1. Serial number of article;
2. Owner applied number;
3. NCIC number.
F. Securities File:
1. Type, serial number, denomination of security, and issuer for
other than U.S. Treasury issues and currency;
2. Type of security and name of owner of security;
3. Social Security number of owner of security (it is noted the
requirements of the Privacy Act with regard to the solicitation of
Social Security numbers have been brought to the attention of the
members of the NCIC system);
4. NCIC number.
G. Wanted Person File:
1. Name and one of the following numerical identifiers:
a. Date of birth;
b. FBI number (number assigned by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to an arrest fingerprint record);
c. Social Security number (it is noted the requirements of the
Privacy Act with regard to the solicitation of Social Security numbers
have been brought to the attention of the members of the NCIC system);
d. Operator's license number (driver's number);
e. Miscellaneous identifying number (military number or number
assigned by federal, state, or local authorities to an individual's
record);
f. Originating agency case number;
2. Vehicle or license plate known to be in the possession of the
wanted person;
3. NCIC number.
H. Foreign Fugitive File: See G, above.
I. Interstate Identification Index File:
1. Name, sex, race, and date of birth;
2. FBI number;
3. State identification number;
4. Social Security number;
5. Miscellaneous identifying number.
J. Witness Security Program File: See G, above.
K. BATF Violent Felon File: See G, above.
L. Missing Person file: See G, above, plus the age, sex, race,
height and weight, eye and hair color of the missing person.
M. U.S. Secret Service Protective File: See G, above.
N. Violent Criminal Gang File: See G, above.
O. Terrorist File: See G, above.
P. Unidentified Person File: The age, sex, race, height and weight,
eye and hair color of the unidentified person.
Safeguards:
Data stored in the NCIC is documented criminal justice agency
information and access to that data is restricted to duly authorized
users. The following security measures are the minimum to be adopted by
all authorized users having access to the NCIC.
Interstate Identification Index (III) File. These measures are
designed to prevent unauthorized access to the system data and/or
unauthorized use of data obtained from the computerized file.
1. Computer Center.
a. The authorized user's computer site must have adequate physical
security to protect against any unauthorized personnel gaining access
to the computer equipment or to any of the stored data.
b. Since personnel at these computer centers can have access to
data stored in the system, they must be screened thoroughly under the
authority and supervision of an NCIC control terminal agency. (This
authority and supervision may be delegated to responsible criminal
justice agency personnel in the case of a satellite computer center
being serviced through a state control terminal agency.) This screening
will also apply to non-criminal justice maintenance or technical
personnel.
c. All visitors to these computer centers must be accompanied by
staff personnel at all times.
d. Computers having access to the NCIC must have the proper
computer instructions written and other built-in controls to prevent
criminal history data from being accessible to any terminals other than
authorized terminals.
e. Computers having access to the NCIC must maintain a record of
all transactions against the criminal history file in the same manner
the NCIC computer logs all transactions. The NCIC identifies each
specific agency entering or receiving information and maintains a
record of those transactions. This transaction record must be monitored
and reviewed on a regular basis to detect any possible misuse of
criminal history data.
f. Each State Control terminal shall build its data system around a
central computer, through which each inquiry must pass for screening
and verification. The configuration and operation of the center shall
provide for the integrity of the data base.
2. Communications:
a. Lines/channels being used to transmit criminal history
information must be dedicated solely to criminal justice, i.e., there
must be no terminals belonging to agencies outside the criminal justice
system sharing these lines/channels.
b. Physical security of the lines/channels must be protected to
guard against clandestine devices being utilized to intercept or inject
system traffic.
3. Terminal Devices Having Access to NCIC:
a. All authorized users having terminal on this system must be
required to physically place theses terminals in secure locations
within the authorized agency.
b. The authorized users having terminals with access to criminal
history must screen terminal operators and restrict access to the
terminal to a minimum number of authorized employees.
c. Copies of criminal history data obtained from terminal devices
must be afforded security to prevent any unauthorized access to or use
of the data.
d. All remote terminals on NCIS III will maintain a manual or
automatedlog of computerized criminal history inquiries with notations
of individuals making requests for records for a minimum of one year.
Retention and disposal:
Unless otherwise removed, records will be retained in files as
follows:
A. Vehicle File:
a. Unrecovered stolen vehicle records (including snowmobile
records) which do not contain vehicle identification numbers (VIN) or
Owner-applied number (OAN) therein, will be purged from file 90 days
after date of entry. Unrecovered stolen vehicle records (including
snowmobile records) which contain VINS or OANs will remain in file for
the year of entry plus 4.
b. Unrecovered vehicles wanted in conjunction with a felony will
remain in file for 90 days after entry. In the event a longer retention
period is desired, the vehicle must be reentered.
c. Unrecovered stolen VIN plates, certificates of origin or title,
and serially numbered stolen vehicle engines or transmissions will
remain in file for the year of entry plus 4. (Job No. NC1-65-82-4, Part
E. 13 h.(12 )
B. License Plate File: Unrecovered stolen license plates will
remain in file for one year after the end of the plate's expiration
year as shown in the record. (Job no. NC1-65-82-4, Part E. 13 h. (2) )
C. Boat file: Unrecovered stolen boat records, which contain a hull
serial number or an OAN, will be retained in file for the balance of
the year entered plus 4. Unrecovered stolen boat records which do not
contain a hull serial number or an OAN will be purged from file 90 days
after date of entry. (Job No. NC1-65-82-4, Part E. 13 h. (6))
D. Gun File:
a. Unrecovered weapons will be retained in file for an indefinite
period until action is taken by the originating agency to clear the
record.
b. Weapons entered in file as ``recovered'' weapons will remain in
file for the balance of the year entered plus 2. (Job No. NC1-65-82-4,
Part E. 13 h. (3))
E. Article File: Unrecovered stolen articles will be retained for
the balance of the year entered plus one year. (Job No. NC1-65-82-4,
Part E. 13 h. (4))
F. Securities File: Unrecovered stolen, embezzled or counterfeited
securities will be retained for the balance of the year entered plus 4,
except for travelers checks and money orders, which will be retained
for the balance of the year entered plus 2. (Job No. NC1-65-82-4, Part
E. 13 h. (5))
G. Wanted Person File: Person not located will remain in file
indefinitely until action is taken by the originating agency to clear
the record (except ``Temporary Felony Wants'', which will be
automatically removed from the file after 48 hours''. (Job No. NC1-65-
87-114, Part E. 13 h. (7))
H. Foreign Fugitive File: Person not located will remain in file
indefinitely until action is taken by the originating agency to clear
the record.
I. Interstate Identification Index File: When an individual reaches
age of 99. (Job No. N1-65-95-03)
J. Witness Security Program File: Will remain in file until action
is taken by the U.S. Marshals Service to clear or cancel the records.
K. BATF Violent Felon File: Will remain in file until action is
taken by the BATF to clear or cancel the records.
L. Missing Persons File: Will remain in the file until the
individual is located or action is taken by the originating agency to
clear the record. (Job No. NC1-65-87-11, Part E 13h (8))
M.U.S. Secret Service Protective File: Will be retained until names
are removed by the U.S. Secret Service.
N. Violent Criminal Gang File: Records will be subject to mandatory
purge if inactive for five years.
O. Terrorist File: Records will be subject to mandatory purge if
inactive for five years.
P. Unidentified Person File: Will be retained for the remainder of
the year of entry plus 9.
System manager(s) and address:
Director, Federal Bureau of investigation, J. Edgar Hoover
Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20535-0001.
Notification procedure:
Same as the above.
Record access procedures:
It is noted the Attorney General has exempted this system from the
access and contest procedures of the Privacy Act. However, the
following alternative procedures are available to a requester. The
procedures by which an individual may obtain a copy of his or her
criminal history record from a state or local criminal justice agency
are detailed in 28 CFR 20.34 appendix and are essentially as follows:
If an individual has a criminal record supported by fingerprints
and that record has been entered in the III System, it is available to
that individual for review, upon presentation of appropriate
identification and in accordance with applicable state and federal
administrative and statutory regulations.
Appropriate identification includes being fingerprinted for the
purpose of insuring that the individual is who the individual purports
to be. The record on file will then be verified through comparison of
fingerprints.
Procedure:
1. All requests for review must be made by the subject of the
record through a law enforcement agency which has access to the III
System. That agency within statutory or regulatory limits can require
additional identification to assist in securing a positive
identification.
2. If the cooperating law enforcement agency can make an
identification with fingerprints previously taken which are on file
locally and if the FBI identification number of the individual's record
is available to that agency, it can make an on-line inquiry through
NCIC to obtain the III System record or, if it does not have suitable
equipment to obtain an on-line response, obtain the record from
Clarksburg, West Virginia, by mail. The individual will then be
afforded the opportunity to see that record.
3. Should the cooperating law enforcement agency not have the
individual's fingerprints on file locally, it is necessary for that
agency to relate the prints to an existing record by having the
identification prints compared with those already on file in the FBI,
or, possibly, in the state's central identification agency.
The procedures by which an individual may obtain a copy of his or
her criminal history record from the FBI are set forth in 28 CFR 16.30-
16.34.
Contesting record procedures:
The Attorney General has exempted this system from the contest
procedures of the Privacy Act. Under the alternative procedures
described above under ``Record Access Procedures,'' the subject of the
requested record shall request the appropriate arresting agency, court,
or correctional agency to initiate action necessary to correct any
stated inaccuracy in subject's record or provide the information needed
to make the record complete. The subject of a record may also direct
his/her challenge as to the accuracy or completeness of any entry on
his/her record to the FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
Division, ATTN: SCU, Mod. D-2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV
26306. The FBI will then forward the challenge to the agency which
submitted the data requesting that agency to verify or correct the
challenged entry. Upon the receipt of an official communication
directly from the agency which contributed the original information,
the FBI CJIS Division will make any changes necessary in accordance
with the information supplied by that agency.
Record source categories:
Information contained in the NCIC system is obtained from local,
state, tribal, federal, foreign, and international criminal justice
agencies.
Systems exempted from certain provisions of the act:
The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsection
(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (2), and (3); (e)(4)(G) and (H), (e)(8)
and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(3).
Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5
U.S.C. 553(b), (c) and (e) and have been published in the Federal
Register.
______
[From the Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 34, February 20, 1998]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 146-97]
Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of Modified Systems of Records
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department
proposes to modify the following Privacy Act systems of records:
Antitrust Information Management System (AMIS)--Matter Report,
Justice/ATR-006 (previously published on October 17, 1988 at 53 FR
40502)
Central Civil Rights Division Index File and Associated Records,
Justice/CRT-001 (previously published on May 17, 1993 at 58 FR 28896)
Central Criminal Division Index File and Associated Records,
Justice/CRM-001 (previously published on December 11, 1987 at 53 FR
47186)
Civil Division Case File System, Justice/CIV-001 (previously
published on October 17, 1988 at 53 FR 40504)
Civil Case Files, Justice/USA-005 (previously published on January
22, 1988 at 53 FR 1864)
Criminal Case Files, Justice/USA-007 (previously published on
January 22, 1988 at 53 FR 1861)
FBI Central Records System, Justice/FBI-002 (previously published
on October 5, 1993 at 58 FR 51858)
Tax Division Central Classification Cards, Index Docket Cards, and
Associated Records--Criminal Tax Cases, Justice/TAX-001 (previously
published on September 30, 1977 at 42 FR 53389)
Tax Division Central Classification Cards, Index Docket Cards, and
Associated Records--Civil Tax Cases, Justice/TAX-002 (previously
published on September 30, 1977 at 42 FR 53390)
The Department proposes to add a new routine use disclosure to all
of the above-named systems of records. The routine use will permit
disclosure of health care-related information obtained during health-
care related investigations. In addition, the Department proposes to
add an additional routine use disclosure to the Central Civil Rights
Division Index File and Associated Records system to permit the
disclosure of information regarding the progress and results of
investigations to the complainants and/or victims involved. The
proposed disclosures have been italicized for the reader's convenience.
The modified systems of records are printed below.
Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provide that the public be given
a 30-day period in which to comment on proposed new routine use
disclosures. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has
oversight responsibilities under the Act, requires a 40-day period in
which to conclude its review of the new routine uses.
Therefore, please submit any comments by March 23, 1998. The
public, OMB, and the Congress are invited to send written comments to
Patricia E. Neely, Program Analyst, Information Management and Security
Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Washington,
DC 20530 (Room 850, WCTR Building).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a
report to OMB and the Congress on the proposed modification.
Dated: December 31, 1997.
Stephen R. Colgate,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
* * * * * * *
JUSTICE/FBI-002
System name:
The FBI Central Records System.
System location:
a. Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 10th
and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20535; b. 56 field divisions
(see Appendix); c. 16 Legal Attache (see Appendix).
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
a. Individuals who relate in any manner to official FBI
investigations including, but not limited to subjects, suspects,
victims, witnesses, and close relatives and associates who are relevant
to an investigation.
b. Applicants for and current and former personnel of the FBI and
persons related thereto who are considered relevant to an applicant
investigation, personnel inquiry, or other personnel matters.
c. Applicants for and appointees to sensitive positions in the
United States Government and persons related thereto who are considered
relevant to the investigation.
d. Individuals who are the subject of unsolicited information, who
offer unsolicited information, request assistance, and make inquiries
concerning record material, including general correspondence, and
contacts with other agencies, businesses, institutions, clubs; the
public and the news media.
e. Individuals associated with administrative operations or
services including pertinent functions, contractors and pertinent
persons related thereto. (All manner of information concerning
individuals may be acquired in connection with and relating to the
varied investigative responsibilities of the FBI which are further
described in ``CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM.'' Depending on the
nature and scope of the investigation this information may include,
among other things, personal habits and conduct, financial information,
travel and organizational affiliation of individuals. The information
collected is made a matter of record and placed in FBI files.)
Categories of records in the system:
The FBI Central Records Systems--The FBI utilizes a central records
system of maintaining its investigative, personnel, applicant,
administrative, and general files. This system consists of one
numerical sequence of subject matter files, an alphabetical index to
the files, and a supporting abstract system to facilitate processing
and accountability of all important mail placed in files. This abstract
system is both a textual and an automated capability for locating mail.
Files kept in FBI field offices are also structured in the same manner,
except they do not utilize an abstract system.
The 281 classifications used by the FBI in its basic filing system
pertain primarily to Federal violations over which the FBI has
investigative jurisdiction. However, included in the 281
classifications are personnel, applicant, and administrative matters to
facilitate the overall filing scheme. These classifications are as
follows (the word ``obsolete'' following the name of the classification
indicates the FBI is no longer initiating investigative cases in these
matters, although the material is retained for reference purposes):
1. Training Schools; National Academy Matters: FBI National Academy
Applicants. Covers general information concerning the FBI National
Academy, including background investigations of individual candidates.
2. Neutrality Matters. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 956
and 958 962; Title 22, United States Code, Sections 1934 and 401.
3. Overthrow or Destruction of the Government. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2385.
4. National Firearms Act, Federal Firearms Act; State Firearms
Control Assistance Act; Unlawful Possession or Receipt of Firearms.
Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5801-5812; Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 921-928; Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1201-1203.
5. Income Tax. Covers violations of Federal income tax laws
reported to the FBI. Complaints are forwarded to the Commissioner of
the Internal Revenue Service.
6. Interstate Transportation of Strikebreakers. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1231.
7. Kidnapping. Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1201 and
1202.
8. Migratory Bird Act. Title 18, United States Code, Section 43;
Title 16, United States Code, Section 703 through 718.
9. Extortion. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 876, 877, 875,
and 873.
10. Red Cross Act. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 706 and
917.
11. Tax (Other than Income). This classification covers complaints
concerning violations of Internal Revenue law as they apply to other
than alcohol, social security and income and profits taxes, which are
forwarded to the Internal Revenue Service.
12. Narcotics. This classification covers complaints received by
the FBI concerning alleged violations of Federal drug laws. Complaints
are forwarded to the headquarters of the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), or the nearest district office of DEA.
13. Miscellaneous. Section 125, National Defense Act, Prostitution;
Selling Whiskey Within Five Miles of An Army Camp, 1920 only. Subjects
were alleged violators of abuse of U.S. flag, fraudulent enlistment,
selling liquor and operating houses of prostitution within restricted
bounds of military reservations. Violations of Section 13 of the
Selective Service Act (Conscription Act) were enforced by the
Department of Justice as a war emergency measure with the Bureau
exercising jurisdiction in the detection and prosecution of cases
within the purview of that Section.
14. Sedition. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2387, 2388,
and 2391.
15. Theft from Interest Shipment. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 859; Title 18, United States Code, Section 660; Title 18 United
States Code, Section 2117.
16. Violations of Federal Injunction (obsolete). Consolidated into
Classification 69, ``Contempt of Court''.
17. Fraud Against the Government, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Department of Veterans Affairs Matters. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 287, 289, 290, 371, or 1001, and Title 38, United States Code,
Sections 787(a), 787(b), 3405, 3501, and 3502.
18. May Act. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1384.
19. Censorship Matter (obsolete). Pub. L. 77th Congress.
20. Federal Grain Standards Act (obsolete) 1920 only. Subjects were
alleged violators of contracts for sale. Shipment of Interstate
Commerce, Section 5, U.S. Grain Standards Act.
21. Food and Drugs. This classification covers complaints received
concerning alleged violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; Tea
Act; Import Milk Act; Caustic Poison Act; and Filled Milk Act. These
complaints are referred to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration of the field component of that Agency.
22. National Motor Vehicle Traffic Act, 1922-27 (obsolete).
Subjects were possible violators of the National Motor Vehicle Theft
Act, Automobiles seized by Prohibitions Agents.
23. Prohibition. This classification covers complaints received
concerning bootlegging activities and other violations of the alcohol
tax laws. Such complaints are referred to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury, or field
representatives of the Agency.
24. Profiteering 1920-42 (obsolete). Subjects are possible
violators of the Lever Act--Profiteering in food and clothing or
accused company was subject of file. Bureau conducted investigations to
ascertain profits.
25. Selective Service Act; Selective Training and Service Act.
Title 50, United States Code, Section 462; Title 50, United States
Code, Section 459.
26. Interstate Transportation of Stolen Motor Vehicle; Interstate
Transportation of Stolen Aircraft. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 2311 (in part), 2312, and 2313.
27. Patent Matter. Title 35, United States Code, Sections 104 and
105.
28. Copyright Matter. Title 17, United States Code, Sections 104
and 105.
29. Bank Fraud and Embezzlement. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 212, 213, 215, 334, 655-657, 1004-1006, 1008, 1009, 1014, and
1306; Title 12, United States Code, Section 1725(g).
30. Interstate Quarantine Law, 1922-25 (obsolete). Subjects alleged
violators of Act of February 15, 1893, as amended, regarding interstate
travel of persons afflicted with infectious diseases. Cases also
involved unlawful transportation of animals, Act of February 2, 1903.
Referrals were made to Public Health Service and the Department of
Agriculture.
31. White Slave Traffic Act. Title 18, United States Code, Section
2421-2424.
32. Identification (Fingerprint) Matters. This classification
covers general information concerning Identification (fingerprint)
matters.
33. Uniform Crime Reporting. This classification covers general
information concerning the Uniform Crime Reports, a periodic
compilation of statistics of criminal violations throughout the United
States.
34. Violation of Lacy Act. 1922-43. (obsolete) Unlawful
Transportation and shipment of black bass and fur seal skins.
35. Civil Service. This classification covers complaints received
by the FBI concerning Civil Service matters which are referred to the
Office of Personnel Management in Washington or regional offices of
that Agency.
36. Mail Fraud. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341.
37. False Claims Against the Government. 1921-22 (obsolete).
Subjects submitted claims for allotment, vocational training,
compensation as veterans under the Sweet Bill. Letters were generally
referred elsewhere (Veterans Bureau). Violators apprehended for
violation of Article No. 1, War Risk Insurance Act.
38. Application for Pardon to Restore Civil Rights. 1921-35
(obsolete). Subjects allegedly obtained their naturalization papers by
fraudulent means. Cases later referred to Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
39. Falsely Claiming Citizenship (obsolete). Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 911 and 1015(a)(b).
40. Passport and Visa Matter. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1451-1546.
41. Explosives (obsolete). Title 50, United States Code, Sections
121 through 144.
42. Deserter; Deserter, Harboring. Title 10, United States Code,
Sections 808 and 885.
43. Illegal Wearing of Uniforms; False Advertising or Misuse of
Names, Words, Emblems or Insignia; Illegal Manufacturer, Use,
Possession, or Sale of Emblems and Insignia; Illegal Manufacture,
Possession, or Wearing of Civil Defense Insignia; Miscellaneous,
Forging or Using Forged Certificate of Discharge from Military or Naval
Service; Miscellaneous, Falsely Making or Forging Naval, Military, or
Official Pass; Miscellaneous, Forging or Counterfeiting Seal of
Department or Agency of the United States, Misuse of the Great Seal of
the United States or of the Seals of the President or the Vice
President of the United States; Unauthorized Use of ``Johnny Horizon''
Symbol; Unauthorized Use of Smokey Bear Symbol. Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 702, 703, and 704; Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 701, 705, 707, and 710; Title 36, United States Code, Section
182; Title 50, Appendix, United States Code, Section 2284; Title 46,
United States Code, Section 249; Title 18, United States Code, Sections
498, 499, 506, 709, 711, 711a, 712, 713, and 714; Title 12, United
States Code, Sections 1457 and 1723a; Title 22, United States Code,
Section 2518.
44. Civil Rights; Civil Rights, Election Laws, Voting Rights Act,
1965, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241, 242, and 245; Title
42, United States Code, Section 1973; Title 18, United States Code,
Section 243; Title 18, United States Code, Section 244, Civil Rights
Act--Federally Protected Activities; Civil Rights Act--Overseas
Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975.
45. Crime on the High Seas (includes stowaways on boats and
aircraft). Title 18, United States Code, Sections 7, 13, 1243, and
2199.
46. Fraud Against the Government (includes Department of Health,
Education and Welfare; Department of Labor (CETA), and Miscellaneous
Government Agencies), Anti-Kickback Statute; Department Assistance Act
of 1950; False Claims, Civil; Federal-Aid Road Act; Lead and Zinc Act;
Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965; Renegotiation Act,
Criminal; Renegotiation Act, Civil; Trade Expansion Act of 1962;
Unemployment Compensation Statutes; Economic Opportunity Act, Title 50,
United States Code, Section 1211 et seq.; Title 31, United States Code,
Section 231; Title 41, United States Code, Section 119; Title 40,
United States Code, Section 489.
47. Impersonation. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 912, 913,
915, and 916.
48. Postal. Violation (Except Mail Fraud). This classification
covers inquiries concerning the Postal Service and complaints
pertaining to the theft of mail. Such complaints are either forwarded
to the Postmaster General or the nearest Postal Inspector.
49. Bankruptcy Fraud. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 151-
155.
50. Involuntary Servitude and Slavery. U.S. Constitution, 13th
Amendment; Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1581-1588, 241, and
242.
51. Jury Panel Investigations. This classification covers jury
panel investigations which are requested by the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 533 and AG memorandum 781,
dated November 9, 1972. These investigations can be conducted only upon
such request and consist of an indices and arrest check, and only in
limited important trials where defendant could have influence over a
juror.
52. Theft, Robbery, Embezzlement, Illegal Possession or Destruction
of Government Property. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641,
1024, 1660, 2112, and 2114. Interference With Government
Communications, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1632.
53. Excess Profits on Wool. 1918 (obsolete). Subjects possible
violators of Government Control of Wool Clip Act of 1918.
54. Customs Laws and Smuggling. This classification covers
complaints received concerning smuggling and other matters involving
importation and entry of merchandise into and the exportation of
merchandise from the United States. Complaints are referred to the
nearest district office of the U.S. Customs Service or the Commissioner
of Customs, Washington, DC.
55. Counterfeiting. This classification covers complaints received
concerning alleged violations of counterfeiting of U.S. coins, notes,
and other obligations and securities of the Government. These
complaints are referred to either the Director, U.S. Secret Service, or
the nearest office of that Agency.
56. Election Laws. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 241, 242,
245, and 591-607; Title 42, United States Code, Section 1973; Title 26,
United States Code, Sections 9012 and 9042; Title 2, United States
Code, Sections 431-437, 439, and 441.
57. War Labor Dispute Act (obsolete). Pub. L. 89--77th Congress.
58. Corruption of Federal Public Officials. Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 201-203, 205-211; Public Law 89-4 and 89-136.
59. World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924-44 (obsolete).
Bureau of Investigation was charged with the duty of investigating
alleged violations of all sections of the World War Adjusted
Compensation Act (Pub. L. 472, 69th Congress (H.R. 10277)) with the
exception of Section 704.
60. Anti-Trust, Title 15, United States Code, Sections 1-7, 12-27,
and 13.
61. Treason or Misprision of Treason. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 2381, 2382, 2389, 2390, 756, and 757.
62. Administrative Inquiries. Misconduct Investigations of Officers
and Employees of the Department of Justice and Federal Judiciary;
Census Matters (Title 13, United States Code, Sections 211-214, 221-
224, 304, and 305) Domestic Police Cooperation; Eight-Hour-Day Law
(Title 40, United States Code, Sections 321, 332, 325a, 326); Fair
Credit Reporting Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 1681q and
1681r); Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Title 15,
United States Code, Section 1333); Federal Judiciary Investigations;
Kickback Racket Act (Title 18, United States Code, Section 874); Lands
Division Matter, other Violations and/or Matters; Civil Suits--
Miscellaneous; Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (Title
50, Appendix, United States Code, Sections 510-590); Tariff Act of 1930
(Title 19, United States Code, Section 1304); Unreported Interstate
Shipment of Cigarettes (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 375 and
376); Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Wages and Hours Law) (Title 29,
United States Code, Sections 201-219); Conspiracy (Title 18, United
States Code, Section 371 (formerly Section 88, Title 18, United States
Code); effective September 1, 1948).
63. Miscellaneous--Nonsubversive. This classification concerns
correspondence from the public which does not relate to matters within
FBI jurisdiction.
64. Foreign Miscellaneous. This classification is a control file
utilized as a repository for intelligence information of value
identified by country. More specific categories are placed in
classification 108-113.
65. Espionage. Attorney General Guidelines on Foreign
Counterintelligence; Internal Security Act of 1950; Executive Order
11905.
66. Administrative Matters. This classification covers such items
as supplies, automobiles, salary matters and vouchers.
67. Personnel Matters. This classification concerns background
investigations of applicants for employment with the FBI and folders
for current and former employees.
68. Alaskan matters (obsolete). This classification concerns FBI
investigations in the Territory of Alaska prior to its becoming a
State.
69. Contempt of Court. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 401,
402, 3285, 3691, 3692; Title 10, United States Code. Section 847; and
Rule 42, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
70. Crime on Government Reservation. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 7 and 13.
71. Bills of Lading Act, Title 49, United States Code, Section 121.
72. Obstruction of Criminal Investigations: Obstruction of Justice,
Obstruction of Court Orders. Title 18, United States Code. Sections
1503 through 1510.
73. Application for Pardon After Completion of Sentence and
Application for Executive Clemency. This classification concerns the
FBI's background investigation in connection with pardon applications
and request for executive clemency.
74. Perjury. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1621, 1622, and
1623.
75. Bondsmen and Sureties. Title 18, United States Code, Section
1506.
76. Escaped Federal Prisoner. Escape and Rescue; Probation
Violator, Parole Violator, Mandatory, Release Violator. Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 751-757, 1072; Title 18, United States
Code. Sections 3651-3656; and Title 18, United States Code. Sections
4202-4207, 5037, and 4161-4166.
77. Applicants (Special Inquiry, Departmental and Other Government
Agencies, except those having special classifications). This
classification covers the background investigations conducted by the
FBI in connection with the aforementioned positions.
78. Illegal Use of Government Transportation Requests. Title 18,
United States Code, Section 287, 495, 508, 641, 1001 and 1002.
79. Missing Persons. This classification covers the FBI's
Identification Division's assistance in the locating of missing
persons.
80. Laboratory Research Matters. At FBI Headquarters this
classification is used for Laboratory research matters. In field office
files this classification covers the FBI's public affairs matters and
involves contact by the FBI with the general public, Federal and State
agencies, the Armed Forces, Corporations, the news media and other
outside organizations.
81. Gold Hoarding. 1933-45. (obsolete) Gold Hoarding investigations
conducted in accordance with an Act of March 9, 1933 and Executive
Order issued August 28, 1933. Bureau instructed by Department to
conduct no further investigations in 1935 under the Gold Reserve Act of
1934. Thereafter, all correspondence referred to Secret Service.
82. War Risk Insurance (National Life Insurance (obsolete)). This
classification covers investigations conducted by the FBI in connection
with civil suits filed under this statute.
83. Court of Claims. This classification covers requests for
investigations of cases pending in the Court of Claims from the
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division of the
Department of Justice.
84. Reconstruction Finance Corporation Act (obsolete). Title 15,
United States Code, Chapter 14.
85. Home Owner Loan Corporation (obsolete). This classification
concerned complaints received by the FBI about alleged violations of
the Home Owners Loan Act, which were referred to the Home Owners Loan
Corporation. Title 12, United States Code, Section 1464.
86. Fraud Against the Government--Small Business Administration.
Title 15, United States Code, Section 645; Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 657, 658, 1006, 1011, 1013,
1014, 1906, 1907, and 1909.
87. Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property (Heavy Equipment--
Commercialized Theft). Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2311,
2314, 2315 and 2318.
88. Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution, Custody, or Confinement;
Unlawful Flight to Avoid Giving Testimony. Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1073 and 1074.
89. Assaulting or Killing a Federal Officer, Crimes Against Family
Members, Congressional Assassination Statute, Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 1111, 1114, 2232.
90. Irregularities in Federal Penal Institutions. Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1791 and 1792.
91. Bank Burglary, Bank Larceny; Bank Robbery. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2113.
92. Racketeer Enterprise Investigations. Title 18, United States
Code. Section 3237.
93. Ascertaining Financial Ability. This classification concerns
requests by the Department of Justice for the FBI to ascertain a
person's ability to pay a claim, fine or judgment obtained against him
by the United States Government.
94. Research matters. This classification concerns all general
correspondence of the FBI with private individuals which does not
involve any substantive violation of Federal law.
95. Laboratory Cases (Examination of Evidence in Other Than
Bureau's Cases). The classification concerns non-FBI cases where a duly
constituted State, county or a municipal law enforcement agency in a
criminal matter has requested an examination of evidence by the FBI
Laboratory.
96. Alien Applicant (obsolete). Title 10, United States Code,
Section 310.
97. Foreign Agents Registration Act. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 951; Title 22, United States Code, Sections 611-621; Title 50,
United States Code, Sections 851-857.
98. Sabotage. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2151-2156;
Title 50, United States Code, Section 797.
99. Plant Survey (obsolete). This classification covers a program
wherein the FBI inspected industrial plants for the purpose of making
suggestions to the operations of those plants to prevent espionage and
sabotage.
100. Domestic Security. This classification covers investigations
by the FBI in the domestic security field, e.g., Smith Act violations.
101. Hatch Act (obsolete). Public Law 252, 76th Congress.
102. Voorhis Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1386.
103. Interstate Transportation of Stolen Livestock, Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 667, 2311, 2316 and 2317.
104. Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942 (obsolete).
Public Law 625, 77th Congress, Sections 115-119.
105. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
106. Alien Enemy Control; Escaped Prisoners of War and Internees,
1944-55 (obsolete). Suspects were generally suspected escaped prisoners
of war, members of foreign organizations, failed to register under the
Alien Registration Act. Cases ordered closed by Attorney General after
alien enemies returned to their respective countries upon termination
of hostilities.
107. Denaturalization Proceedings (obsolete). This classification
covers investigation concerning allegations that an individual
fraudulently swore allegiance to the United States or in some other
manner illegally obtained citizenship to the U.S. Title 8, United
States Code, Section 738.
108. Foreign Travel Control (obsolete). This classification
concerns security-type investigations wherein the subject is involved
in foreign travel.
109. Foreign Political Matters. This classification is a control
file utilized as a repository for intelligence information concerning
foreign political matters broken down by country.
110. Foreign Economic Matters. This classification is a control
file utilized as a repository for intelligence information concerning
foreign economic matters broken down by country.
111. Foreign Social Conditions. This classification is a control
file utilized as a repository for intelligence information concerning
foreign social conditions broken down by county.
112. Foreign Funds. This classification is a control file utilized
as a repository for intelligence information concerning foreign funds
broken down by country.
113. Foreign Military and Naval Matters. This classification is a
control file utilized as a repository for intelligence information
concerning foreign military and naval matters broken down by country.
114. Alien Property Custodian Matter (obsolete). Title 50, United
States Code, Sections 1 through 38. This classification covers
investigations concerning ownership and control of property subject to
claims and litigation under this statute.
115. Bond Default; Bail Jumper. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3146-3152.
116. Department of Energy Applicant; Department of Energy,
Employee. This classification concerns background investigations
conducted in connection with employment with the Department of Energy.
117. Department of Energy, Criminal. Title 42, United States Code,
Sections 2011-2281; Public Law 93-438.
118. Applicant, Intelligence Agency (obsolete). This classification
covers applicant background investigations conducted of persons under
consideration for employment by the Central Intelligence Group.
119. Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act. Title 2, United States
Code, ections 261-270.
120. Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28, United States Code,
Sections 2671 to 2680. Investigations are conducted pursuant to
specific request from the Department of Justice in connection with
cases in which the Department of Justice represents agencies sued under
the Act.
121. Loyalty of Government Employees (obsolete). Executive Order
9835.
122. Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. Title 29, United States
Code, Sections 161, 162, 176-178 and 186.
123. Section inquiry, State Department, Voice of America (U.S.
Information Center) (Public Law 402, 80th Congress) (obsolete). This
classification covers loyalty and security investigations on personnel
employed by or under consideration for employment for Voice of America.
124. European Recovery Program Administration, formerly Foreign
Operations Administration, Economic Cooperation Administration or
E.R.P., European Recovery Programs; A.I.D. Agency for International
Development (obsolete). This classification covers security and loyalty
investigation of personnel employed by or under consideration for
employment with the European Recovery Program, Public Law 472, 80th
Congress.
125. Railway Labor Act; Railway Labor Act--Employer's Liability Act
Title 45, United States Code, Sections 151-163 and 181-188.
126. National Security Resources Board, Special Inquiry (obsolete).
This classification covers loyalty investigations on employees and
applicants of the National Security Resources Board.
127. Sensitive Positions in the United States Government, Public
Law 266 (obsolete). Public Law 81st Congress.
128. International Development Program (Foreign Operations
Administration) (obsolete). This classification covers background
investigations conducted on individuals who are to be assigned to
duties under the International Development Program.
129. Evacuation Claims (obsolete). Public Law 886, 80th Congress.
130. Special Inquiry. Armed Forces Security Act (obsolete). This
classification covers applicant-type investigations conducted for the
Armed Forces security agencies.
131. Admiralty Matter. Title 46, United States Code, Sections 741-
752 and 781-799.
132. Special Inquiry, Office of Defense Mobilization (obsolete).
This classification covers applicant-type investigations of individuals
associated with the Office of Defense Mobilization.
133. National Science Foundation Act, Applicant (obsolete). Public
Law 507, 81st Congress.
134. Foreign Counterintelligence Assets. This classification
concerns individuals who provide information to the FBI concerning
Foreign Counterintelligence matters.
135. PROSAB (Protection of Strategic Air Command Bases of the U.S.
Air Force (obsolete). This classification covered contacts with
individuals with the aim to develop information useful to protect bases
of the Strategic Air Command.
136. American Legion Contact (obsolete). This classification
covered liaison contracts with American Legion offices.
137. Informants. Other than Foreign Counterintelligence Assets.
This classification concerns individuals who furnish information to the
FBI concerning criminal violations on a continuing and confidential
basis.
138. Loyalty of Employees of the United Nations and Other Public
International Organizations. This classification concerns FBI
investigations based on referrals from the Office of Personnel
Management wherein a question or allegation has been received regarding
the applicant's loyalty to the U.S. Government as described in
Executive Order 10422.
139. Interception of Communications (Formerly, Unauthorized
Publication or Use of Communications). Title 47, United States Code,
Section 605; Title 47, United States Code, Section 501; Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 2510-2513.
140. Security of Government Employees; Fraud Against the
Government, Executive Order 10450.
141. False Entries in Records of Interstate Carriers. Title 47,
United States Code, Section 220; Title 49, United States Code, Section
20.
142. Illegal Use of Railroad Pass. Title 49, United States Code,
Section 1.
143. Interstate Transport of Gambling Devices. Title 15, United
States Code, Sections 1171 through 1180.
144. Interstate Transportation of Lottery Tickets. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1301.
145. Interstate Transportation of Obscene Materials. Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1462, 1464, and 1465.
146. Interstate Transportation of Prison-Made Goods. Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1761 and 1762.
147. Fraud Against the Government--Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Matters. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 657, 709,
1006, and 1010; Title 12, United States Code, Sections 1709 and 1715.
148. Interstate Transportation of Fireworks. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 836.
149. Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicles. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 31-35.
150. Harboring of Federal Fugitives, Statistics (obsolete).
151. (Referral cases received from the Office of Personnel
Management under Pub. L. 298). Agency for International Development;
Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
National Science Foundation; Peace Corps; Action; U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency; World Health Organization; International Labor
Organization; International Communications Agency. This classification
covers referrals from the Office of Personnel Management where an
allegation has been received regarding an applicant's loyalty to the
U.S. Government. These referrals refer to applicants from Peace Corps;
Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency and the International Communications Agency.
152. Switchblade Knife Act. Title 15, United States Code, Sections
1241-1244.
153. Automobile Information Disclosure Act. Title 15, United States
Code, Sections 1231-1233.
154. Interstate Transportation of Unsafe Refrigerators. Title 15,
United States Code, Sections 1211-1214.
155. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 799.
156. Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Title 29, United
States Code, Sections 1021-1029, 1111, 1131, and 1141; Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 644, 1027, and 1954.
157. Civil Unrest. This classification concerns FBI responsibility
for reporting information on civil disturbances or demonstrations. The
FBI's investigative responsibility is based on the Attorney General's
Guidelines for Reporting on Civil Disorders and Demonstrations
Involving a Federal Interest which became effective April 5, 1976.
158. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
(Security Matter) (obsolete). Public Law 86-257, Section 504.
159. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
(Investigative Matter). Title 29, United States Code, Sections 501,
504, 522, and 530.
160. Federal Train Wreck Statute. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1992.
161. Special Inquiries for White House, Congressional Committee and
Other Government Agencies. This classification covers investigations
requested by the White House. Congressional committees or other
Government agencies.
162. Interstate Gambling Activities. This classification covers
information acquired concerning the nature and scope of illegal
gambling activities in each field office.
163. Foreign Police Cooperation. This classification covers
requests by foreign police for the FBI to render investigative
assistance to such agencies.
164. Crime Aboard Aircraft. Title 49, United States Code, Sections
1472 and 1473.
165. Interstate Transmission of Wagering Information. Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1065.
166. Interstate Transportation in Aid of Racketeering. Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1952.
167. Destruction of Interstate Property. Title 15, United States
Code, Sections 1281 and 1282.
168. Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia. Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1953.
169. Hydraulic Brake Fluid Act (obsolete); 76 Stat. 437, Public Law
87-637.
170. Extremist Informants (obsolete). This classification concerns
individuals who provided information on a continuing basis on various
extremist elements.
171. Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act (obsolete). Pub. L. 88-201, 80th
Congress.
172. Sports Bribery. Title 18, United States Code, Section 244.
173. Public Accommodations. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public
Facilities; Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Education; Civil Rights Act
of 1964 Employment; Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 42, United States
Code, Section 2000; Title 18, United States Code, Section 245.
174. Explosives and Incendiary Devices; Bomb Threats (Formerly
Bombing Matters; Bombing Matters, Threats). Title 18, United States
Code, Section 844.
175. Assaulting, Kidnapping or Killing the President (or Vice
President) of the United States. Title 18, United States Code, Section
1751.
176. Anti-riot Laws. Title 18, United States Code, Section 245.
177. Discrimination in Housing. Title 42, United States Code,
Sections 3601-3619 and 3631.
178. Interstate Obscene or Harassing Telephone Calls. Title 47,
United States Code, Section 223.
179. Extortionate Credit Transactions. Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 891-896.
180. Desecration of the Flag. Title 18, United States Code, Section
700.
181. Consumer Credit Protection Act. Title 15, United States Code,
Section 1611.
182. Illegal Gambling Business: Illegal Gambling Business,
Obstruction; Illegal Gambling Business Forfeiture. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1955; Title 18, United States Code, Section 1511.
183. Racketeer, Influence and Corrupt Organizations. Title 18,
United States Code, Sections 1961-1968.
184. Police Killings. This classification concerns investigations
conducted by the FBI upon written request from local Chief of Police or
duty constituted head of the local agency to actively participate in
the investigation of the killing of a police officer. These
investigations are based on a Presidential Directive dated June 3,
1971.
185. Protection of Foreign Officials and Officials Guests of the
United States. Title 18, United States Code, Sections 112, 970, 1116,
1117, and 1201.
186. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974. Title 12,
United States Code, Section 2602; Title 12, United States Code, Section
2606, and Title 12, United States Code, Section 2607.
187. Privacy Act of 1974, Criminal. Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552a.
188. Crime Resistance. This classification covers FBI efforts to
develop new or improved approaches, techniques, systems, equipment and
devices to improve and strengthen law enforcement as mandated by the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Action of 1968.
189. Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Title 15, United States Code,
Section 1691.
190. Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts. This classification
covers the creation of a correspondence file to preserve and maintain
accurate records concerning the handling of requests for records
submitted pursuant to the Freedom of Information--Privacy Acts.
191. False Identity Matters. (obsolete) This classification covers
the FBI's study and examination of criminal elements' efforts to create
false identities.
192. Hobbs Act--Financial Institutions; Commercial Institutions
Armored Carrier. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.
193. Hobbs Act--Commercial Institutions (obsolete). Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1951; Title 47, United States Code, Section
506.
194. Hobbs Act--Corruption of Public Officials. Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1951.
195. Hobbs Act--Labor Related. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1951.
196. Fraud by Wire. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
197. Civil Actions or Claims Against the Government. This
classification covers all civil suits involving FBI matters and most
administrative claims filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act arising
from FBI activities.
198. Crime on Indian Reservations. Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 1151, 1152, and 1153.
199. Foreign Counterintelligence--Terrorism. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
200. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
201. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
202. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
203. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
204. Federal Revenue Sharing. This classification covers FBI
investigations conducted where the Attorney General has been authorized
to bring civil action whenever he has reason to believe that a pattern
or practice of discrimination in disbursement of funds under the
Federal Revenue Sharing status exists.
205. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. Title 15, United States
Code, Section 78.
206. Fraud Against the Government--Department of Defense,
Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Community Services
Organization, Department of Transportation. (See classification 46
(supra) for a statutory authority for this and the four following
classifications.)
207. Fraud Against the Government--Environmental Protection Agency,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy,
Department of Transportation.
208. Fraud Against the Government--General Services Administration.
209. Fraud Against the Government--Department of Health and Human
Services (Formerly Department of Health, Education, and Welfare).
210. Fraud Against the Government--Department of Labor.
211. Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Title VI (Title 28, Sections
591-596).
212. Foreign Counterintelligence--Intelligence Community Support.
This is an administrative classification for the FBI's operational and
technical support to other Intelligence Community agencies.
213. Fraud Against the Government--Department of Education.
214. Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (Title 42,
United States Code, Section 1997).
215. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
216. thru 229. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. (Same authority
as 215.)
230. thru 240. FBI Training Matters.
241. DEA Applicant Investigations.
242. Automation Matters.
243. Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
244. Hostage Rescue Team.
245. Drug Investigative Task Force.
246 thru 248. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. (Same authority
as 215.)
249. Environmental Crimes--Investigations involving toxic or
hazardous waste violations.
250. Tampering With Consumer Products (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section
1395).
251. Controlled Substance--Robbery;--Burglary (Title 18, U.S. Code,
section 2118).
252. Violent Crime Apprehension Program (VICAP). Case folders
containing records relevant to the VICAP Program, in conjunction with
the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Record System at
the FBI Academy; Quantico, Virginia.
253. False Identification Crime Control Act of 1982 (Title 18, U.S.
Code, Section 1028--Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With
Identification Documents, and Section 1738--Mailing Private
Identification Documents Without a Disclaimer).
254. Destruction of Energy Facilities (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section
1365) relates to the destruction of property of nonnuclear energy
facilities.
255. Counterfeiting of State and Corporate Securities (Title 18,
U.S. Code, Section 511) covers counterfeiting and forgery of all forms
of what is loosely interpreted as securities.
256. Hostage Taking--Terrorism (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1203)
prohibits taking of hostage(s) to compel third party to do or refrain
from doing any act.
257. Trademark Counterfeiting Act (Title 18, United States Code,
section 2320) covers the international trafficking in goods which bear
a counterfeited trademark.
258. Credit Card Fraud Act of 1984 (Title 18, United States Code,
section 1029) covers fraud and related activities in connection with
access devices (credit and debit cards).
259. Security Clearance Investigations Program. (Same authority as
215.)
260. Industrial Security Program. (Same authority as 215.)
261. Security Officer Matters. (Same authority as 215.)
262. Overseas Homicide (Attempted Homicide--International
Terrorism). Title 18, United States Code, Section 2331.
263. Office of Professional Responsibility Matters.
264. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1030; Title 18, United States Code, Section 2701.
265. Acts of Terrorism in the United States--International
Terrorist. (Followed by predicate offense from other classification.)
266. Acts of Terrorism in the United States--Domestic Terrorist.
(Followed by predicate offense from other classification.)
267. Drug-Related Homicide. Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 848(e).
268. Engineering Technical Matters--FCI.
269. Engineering Technical Matters--Non-FCI.
270. Cooperative Witnesses.
271. Foreign Counterintelligence Matters. Attorney General
Guidelines on Foreign Counterintelligence. Executive Order 11905.
272. Money Laundering. Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 1956 and 1957.
273. Adoptive Forfeiture Matter--Drug. Forfeiture based on seizure
of property by state, local or other Federal authority.
274. Adoptive Forfeiture Matter--Organized Crime. (Same explanation
as 273.)
275. Adoptive Forfeiture Matter--White Collar Crime. (Same
explanation as 273.)
276. Adoptive Forfeiture Matter--Violent Crime/Major Offenders
Program. (Same explanation as 273.)
277. Adoptive Forfeiture Matter--Counterterrorism Program. (Same
explanation as 273.)
278. Presidents Intelligence Oversight Board. Executive Order
12334.
279. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. (Title 18, U.S.
Code, Sections 175-179).
280. Equal Employment Opportunity Investigations.
281. Organized Crime Drug Investigations. Records Maintained in FBI
Field Divisions--FBI field divisions maintain for limited periods of
time investigative, administrative and correspondence records,
including files, index cards and related material, some of which are
duplicated copies of reports and similar documents forwarded to FBI
Headquarters. Most investigative activities conducted by FBI field
divisions are reported to FBI Headquarters at one or more stages of the
investigation. There are, however, investigative activities wherein no
reporting was made to FBI Headquarters, e.g., pending cases not as yet
reported and cases which were closed in the field division for any of a
number of reasons without reporting to FBI Headquarters.
Duplicate records and records which extract information reported in
the main files are also kept in the various divisions of the FBI to
assist them in their day-to-day operation. These records are lists of
individuals which contain certain biographic data, including physical
description and photograph. They may also contain information
concerning activities of the individual as reported to FBIHQ by the
various field offices. The establishment of these lists is necessitated
by the needs of the Division to have immediate access to pertinent
information duplicative of data found in the central records without
the delay caused by a time-consuming manual search of central indices.
The manner of segregating these individuals varies depending on the
particular needs of the FBI Division. The information pertaining to
individuals who are a part of the list is derivative of information
contained in the Central Records System. These duplicative records fall
into the following categories:
(1) Listings of individuals used to assist in the location and
apprehension of individuals for whom legal process is outstanding
(fugitives):
(2) Listings of individuals used in the identification of
particular offenders in cases where the FBI has jurisdiction. These
listings include various photograph albums and background data
concerning persons who have been formerly charged with a particular
crime and who may be suspect in similar criminal activities; and
photographs of individuals who are unknown but suspected of involvement
in a particular criminal activity, for example, bank surveillance
photographs:
(3) Listings of individuals as part of an overall criminal
intelligence effort by the FBI. This would include photograph albums,
lists of individuals known to be involved in criminal activity,
including theft from interstate shipment, interstate transportation of
stolen property, and individuals in the upper echelon of organized
crime:
(4) Listings of individuals in connection with the FBI's mandate to
carry out Presidential directives on January 8, 1943, July 24, 1950,
December 15, 1953, and February 18, 1976, which designated the FBI to
carry out investigative work in matters relating to espionage,
sabotage, and foreign counterintelligence. These listings may include
photograph albums and other listings containing biographic data
regarding individuals. This would include lists of identified and
suspected foreign intelligence agents and informants:
(5) Special indices duplicative of the central indices used to
access the Central Records System have been created from time to time
in conjunction with the administration and investigation of major
cases. This duplication and segregation facilitates access to documents
prepared in connection with major cases.
In recent years, as the emphasis on the investigation of white
collar crime, organized crime, and hostile foreign intelligence
operations has increased, the FBI has been confronted with increasingly
complicated cases, which require more intricate information processing
capabilities. Since these complicated investigations frequently involve
massive volumes of evidence and other investigative information, the
FBI uses its computers, when necessary to collate, analyze, and
retrieve investigative information in the most accurate and expeditious
manner possible. It should be noted that this computerized
investigative information, which is extracted from the main files or
other commercial or governmental sources, is only maintained as
necessary to support the FBI's investigative activities. Information
from these internal computerized subsystems of the ``Central Records
System'' is not accessed by any other agency. All disclosures of
computerized information are made in printed form or other appropriate
format, in accordance with the routine uses which are set forth below
and in compliance with applicable security requirements.
Records also are maintained on a temporary basis relevant to the
FBI's domestic police cooperating program, where assistance in
obtaining information is provided to state and local police agencies.
Also, personnel type information, dealing with such matters as
attendance and production and accuracy requirements is maintained by
some divisions.
(The following chart identifies various listings or indexes maintained
by the FBI which have been or are being used by various divisions of
the FBI in their day-to-day operations. The chart identifies the list
by name, description and use, and where maintained, i.e., FBI
Headquarters and/or Field Office. The number of field offices which
maintain these indices is also indicated. The list indicates those
indexes which are in current use (designated by the word ``active'')
and those which are no longer being used, although maintained
(designated by the word ``inactive''). There are 27 separate indices
which are classified in accordance with existing regulations and are
not included in this list. The following indices are no longer being
used by the FBI and are being maintained at FBIHQ pending receipt of
authority to destroy: Black Panther Party Photo Index; Black United
Front Index; Security Index; and Wounded Knee Album.)
1. Administrative Index (ADEX). Consists of cards with descriptive
data on individuals who were subject to investigation in a national
emergency because they were believed to constitute a potential or
active threat to the internal security of the United States. When ADEX
was started in 1971, it was made up of people who were formerly on the
Security Index, Reserve Index, and Agitator Index. This index is
maintained in two separate locations in FBI Headquarters. ADEX was
discontinued in January 1978. This list is inactive at FBI Headquarters
and 29 Field Offices.
2. Anonymous Letter File. Consists of photographs of anonymous
communications and extortionate credit transactions, kidnapping,
extortion and threatening letters. It is active at FBI Headquarters.
3. Associates of DEA Class I Narcotics Violators Listing. Consists
of a computer listing of individuals whom DEA has identified as
associates of Class I Narcotics Violators. It is active at FBI
Headquarters and 56 Field Offices.
4. Background Investigation Index--Department of Justice. Consists
of cards on persons who have been the subject of a full field
investigation in connection with their consideration of employment in
sensitive positions with Department of Justice, such as U.S. Attorney,
Federal judges, or a high level Department position. It is active at
FBI Headquarters.
5. Background Investigation Index--White House, Other Executive
Agencies, and Congress. Consists of cards on persons who have been the
subject of a full field investigation in connection with their
consideration for employment in sensitive positions with the White
House, Executive agencies (other than the Department of Justice) and
the Congress. Active at FBI Headquarters.
6. Bank Fraud and Embezzlement Index. Consists of individuals who
have been the subject of ``Bank Fraud and Embezzlement'' investigation.
This file is used as an investigative aid. It is active in one Field
Office.
7. Bank Robbery Album. Consists of photos of bank robbers,
burglars, and larceny subjects. In some field offices it will also
contain pictures obtained from local police departments of known armed
robbers and thus potential bank robbers. The index is used to develop
investigative leads in bank robbery cases and may also be used to show
to witnesses of bank robberies. It is usually filed by race, height,
and age. This index is also maintained in one resident agency (a
suboffice of a field office). Active in 47 Field Offices.
8. Bank Robbery Nickname Index. Consists of nicknames used by known
bank robbers. The index cards on each would contain the real name and
method of operation and are filed in alphabetical order. Active in one
Field Office.
9. Bank Robbery Note File. Consists of photographs of notes used in
bank robberies in which the suspect has been identified. This index is
used to help solve robberies in which the subject has not been
identified but a note was left. The role is compared with the index to
try to match the sentence structure and handwriting for the purpose of
identifying possible suspects. Active at FBI Headquarters.
10. Bank Robbery Suspect Index. Consists of a control file or index
cards with photos, if available, of bank robbers or burglars. In some
field offices these people may be part of a bank robbery album. This
index is generally maintained and used in the same manner as the bank
robbery album. Active in 33 Field Offices.
11. Car Ring Case Photo Album. Consists of photos of subjects and
suspects involved in a large car theft ring investigation. It is used
as an investigative aid. Active in one Field Office.
12. Car Ring Case Photo Album and Index. Consists of photos of
subjects and suspects involved in a large car theft ring investigation.
The card index maintained in addition to the photo album contains the
names and addresses appearing on fraudulent title histories for stolen
vehicles. Most of these names appearing on these titles are fictitious.
But the photo album and card indexes are used as an investigative aid.
Active in one Field Office.
13. Car Ring Case Toll Call Index. Consists of cards with
information on persons who subscribe to telephone numbers to which toll
calls have been placed by the major subjects of a large car theft ring
investigation. It is maintained numerically by telephone number. It is
used to facilitate the development of probable cause for a court-
approved wiretap. Active in two Field Offices.
14. Car Ring Theft Working Index. Contains cards on individuals
involved in car ring theft cases on which the FBI Laboratory is doing
examination work. Active at FBI Headquarters.
15. Cartage Album. Consists of photos with descriptive data of
individuals who have been convicted of theft from interstate shipment
or interstate transportation of stolen property where there is a reason
to believe they may request the offense. It is used in investigating
the above violations. Active in three Field Offices.
16. Channelizing Index. Consists of cards with the names and case
file numbers of people who are frequently mentioned in information
reports. The index is used to facilitate the distributing or channeling
of information reports to appropriate files. Active in nine Field
Offices.
17. Check Circular File. Consists of fliers numerically in a
control file on fugitives who are notorious fraudulent check passers
and who are engaged in a continuing operation of passing checks. The
fliers, which include the subject's name, photo, a summary of the
subject's method of operation and other identifying data, are used to
alert other FBI field offices and business establishments which may be
the victims of bad checks.
18. Computerized Telephone Number File (CTNF) Intelligence.
Consists of a computer listing of telephone numbers (and) subscribers'
names and addresses) utilized by subjects and/or certain individuals
which come to the FBI's attention during major investigations. During
subsequent investigations, telephone numbers, obtained through
subpoena, are matched with the telephone numbers on file to determine
connections or associations. Active at FBI Headquarters.
19. Con Man Index. Consists of computerized names of individuals,
along with company affiliation, who travel nationally and
internationally while participating in large-dollar-value financial
swindles. Active in four Field Offices.
20. Confidence Game (Flim Flam) Album. Consists of photos with
descriptive information on individuals who have been arrested for
confidence games and related activities. It is used as an investigative
aid. Active in one Field Office.
21. Copyright Matters Index. Consists of cards of individuals who
are film collectors and film titles. It is used as a reference in the
investigation of copyright matters. Active in one Field Office.
22. Criminal Intelligence Index. Consists of cards with name and
file number of individuals who have become the subject of an
antiracketeering investigation. The index is used as a quick way to
ascertain file numbers and the correct spelling of names. This index is
active in two Field Offices and one Resident Agency.
23. Criminal Informant Index. Consists of cards containing identity
and brief background information on all active and inactive informants
furnishing information in the criminal area. Active at FBI
Headquarters.
24. DEA Class 1 Narcotics Violators Listing. Consists of a computer
listing of narcotic violators--persons known to manufacture, supply, or
distribute large quantities of illicit drugs--with background data. It
is used by the FBI in their role of assisting DEA in disseminating
intelligence data concerning illicit drug trafficking. This index is
also maintained in two resident agencies.
25. Deserter Index. Contains cards with the names of individuals
who are known military deserters. It is used as an investigative aid.
Active in four Field Offices.
26. False Identities Index. Contains cards with the names of
deceased individuals whose birth certificates have been obtained by
other persons for possible false identification uses and in connection
with which the FBI laboratory has been requested to perform
examinations. Inactive at FBI Headquarters.
27. False Identities List. Consists of a listing of names of
deceased individuals whose birth certificates have been obtained after
the person's death, and thus whose names are possibly being used for
false identification purposes. The listing is maintained as part of the
FBI's program to find persons using false identities for illegal
purposes. Inactive at 31 Field Offices.
28. False Identity Photo Album. Consists of names and photos of
people who have been positively identified as using a false
identification. This is used as an investigative aid in the FBI's
investigation of false identities. Inactive in two Field Offices.
29. FBI/Inspector General (IG) Case Pointer System (FICPS).
Consists of a computerized listing of individual names of organizations
which are the subject of active and inactive fraud investigations,
along with the name of the agency conducting the investigation. Data is
available to IG offices throughout the federal government to prevent
duplication of investigative activity. Active at FBI Headquarters.
30. FBI Wanted Persons Index. Consists of cards on persons being
sought on the basis of Federal warrants covering violations which fall
under the jurisdiction of the FBI. It is used as a ready reference to
identify those fugitives. Active at FBI Headquarters.
31. Foreign Counterintelligence (FCI). Consists of cards with
identity background data on all active and inactive operational and
informational assets in the foreign counterintelligence field. It is
used as a reference aid on the FCI Asset program. Active at FBI
Headquarters.
32. Fraud Against the Government Index. Consists of individuals who
have been the subject of a ``fraud against the
Government''investigation. It is used as an investigative aid. Active
in one Field Office.
33. Fugitive Bank Robbers File. Consists of fliers on bank robbery
fugitives filed sequentially in a control file. FBI Headquarters
distributes to the field offices fliers on bank robbers in a fugitive
status for 15 or more days to facilitate their location. Active at FBI
Headquarters and in 43 Field Offices.
34. General Security Index. Contains cards on all persons that have
been the subject of a security classification investigation by the FBI
field office. These cards are used for general reference purposes.
Active in one Field Office.
35. Hoodlum License Plate Index. Consists of cards with the license
plate numbers and descriptive data on known hoodlums and cars observed
in the vicinity of hoodlum homes. It is used for quick identification
of such person in the course of investigation. The one index which is
not fully retrievable is maintained by a resident agency. Active in
three Field Offices.
36. Identification Order Fugitive Flier File. Consists of fliers
numerically in a control file. When immediate leads have been exhausted
in fugitive investigations and a crime of considerable public interest
has been committed, the fliers are given wide circulation among law
enforcement agencies throughout the United States and are posted in
post offices. The fliers contain the fugitive's photograph,
fingerprints, and description. Active at FBI Headquarters and in 49
Field Offices.
37. Informant Index. Consists of cards with the name, symbol
numbers, and brief background information on the following categories
of active and inactive informants, top echelon criminal informants,
security informants, criminal information, operational and
informational assets, extremist informants (discontinued), plant
informant--informants on and about certain military basis
(discontinued), and potential criminal informants. Active in 56 Field
Offices.
38. Informants in Other Field Offices, Index of. Consist of cards
with names and/or symbol numbers of informants in other FBI field
offices that are in a position to furnish information that would also
be included on the index card. Active in 15 Field Offices.
39. Interstate Transportation of Stolen Aircraft Photo Album.
Consists of photos and descriptive data on individuals who are suspects
known to have been involved in interstate transportation of stolen
aircraft. It is used as an investigative aid. Active in one Field
Office.
40. IRS Wanted List. Consists of one-page fliers from IRS on
individuals with background information who are wanted by IRS for tax
purposes. It is used in the identification of persons wanted by IRS.
Active in 11 Field Offices.
41. Kidnapping Book. Consists of data, filed chronologically, on
kidnappings that have occurred since the early fifties. The victims'
names and the suspects, if known, would be listed with a brief
description of the circumstances surrounding the kidnapping. The file
is used as a reference aid in matching up prior methods of operation in
unsolved kidnapping cases. Active at FBI Headquarters and inactive in
four Field Offices.
42. Known Check Passers Album. Consists of photos with descriptive
data of persons known to pass stolen, forged, or counterfeit checks. It
is used as an investigative aid. Active in four Field Offices.
43. Known Gambler Index. Consists of cards with names, descriptive
data, and sometimes photos of individuals who are known bookmakers and
gamblers. The index is used in organized crime and gambling
investigations. Subsequent to GAO's review, and at the recommendation
of the inspection team at one of the two field offices where the index
was destroyed and thus is not included in the total. Active in five
Field Offices.
44. La Cosa Nostra (LCN) Membership Index. Contains cards on
individuals having been identified as members of the LCN index. The
cards contain personal data and pictures. The index is used solely by
FBI agents for assistance in investigating organized crime matters.
Active at FBI Headquarters and 55 Field Offices.
45. Leased Line Letter Request Index. Contains cards on individuals
and organizations who are or have been the subject of a national
security electronic surveillance where a leased line letter was
necessary. It is used as an administrative and statistical aid. Active
at FBI Headquarters.
46. Mail Cover Index. Consists of cards containing a record of all
mail covers conducted on individuals and group since about January
1973. It is used for reference in preparing mail cover requests. Active
at FBIHQ.
47. Military Deserter Index. Consists of cards containing the names
of all military deserters where the various military branches have
requested FBI assistance in locating. It is used as an administrative
aid. Active at FBI Headquarters.
48. National Bank Robbery Album. Consists of fliers on bank robbery
suspects held sequentially in a control file. When an identifiable bank
camera photograph is available and the case has been under
investigation for 30 days without identifying the subject, FBIHQ sends
a flier to the field offices to help identify the subject. Active at
FBI Headquarters and in 42 Field Offices.
49. National Fraudulent Check File. Contains photographs of the
signature on stolen and counterfeit checks. It is filed alphabetically
but there is no way of knowing the names are real or fictitious. The
index is used to help solve stolen check cases by matching checks
obtained in such cases against the index to identify a possible
suspect. Active at FBI Headquarters.
50. National Security Electronic Surveillance Card File. Contains
cards recording electronic surveillances previously authorized by the
Attorney General and previously and currently authorized by the FISC;
current and previous assets in the foreign counterintelligence field;
and a historical, inactive section which contains cards believed to
record nonconsented physical entries in national security cases,
previously toll billings, mail covers and leased lines. The inactive
section also contains cards Attorney General approvals and denials for
warrantless electronic surveillance in the national security cases.
Inactive at FBI Headquarters.
51. Night Depository Trap Index. Contains cards with the names of
persons who have been involved in the theft of deposits made in bank
night depository boxes. Since these thefts have involved various
methods, the FBI uses the index to solve such cases by matching up
similar methods to identify possible suspects. Active at FBI
Headquarters.
52. Organized Crime Photo Album. Consists of photos and background
information on individuals involved in organized crime activities. The
index is used as a ready reference in identifying organized crime
figures within the field offices' jurisdiction. Active in 13 Field
Offices.
53. Photospread Identification Elimination File. Consists of photos
of individuals who have been subjects and suspects in FBI
investigations. It also includes photos received from other law
enforcement agencies. These pictures can be used to show witnesses of
certain crimes. Active in 14 Field Offices.
54. Prostitute Photo Album. Consists of photos with background data
on prostitutes who have prior local or Federal arrests for
prostitution. It is used to identify prostitutes in connection with
investigations under the White Slave Traffic Act. Active in four Field
Offices.
55. Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) Wanted Circular File.
Consists of a control file of individuals with background information
of persons wanted by the RCMP. It is used to notify the RCMP if an
individual is located. Active in 17 Field Offices.
56. Security Informant Index. Consists of cards containing identity
and brief background information on all active and inactive informants
furnishing information in the criminal area. Active at FBI
Headquarters.
57. Security Subjects Control Index. Consists of cards containing
the names and case file numbers of individuals who have been subject to
security investigations check. It is used as a reference source. Active
in one Field Office.
58. Security Telephone Number Index. Contains cards with telephone
subscriber information subpoenaed from the telephone company in any
security investigation. It is maintained numerically by the last three
digits in the telephone number. It is used for general reference
purposes in security investigations. Active in one Field Office.
59. Selective Service Violators Index. Contains cards on
individuals being sought on the basis of Federal warrants for violation
of the Selective Service Act. Active at FBI Headquarters.
60. Sources of Information Index. Consists of cards on individuals
and organizations such as banks, motels, local government that are
willing to furnish information to the FBI with sufficient frequency to
justify listing for the benefit of all agents. It is maintained to
facilitate the use of such sources. Active in 10 Field Offices.
61. Special Services Index. Contains cards of prominent individuals
who are in a position to furnish assistance in connection with FBI
investigative responsibility. Active in 28 Field Offices.
62. Stolen Checks and Fraud by Wire Index. Consists of cards on
individuals involved in check and fraud by wire violations. It is used
as an investigative aid. Active in one Field Office.
63. Stop Notices Index. Consists of cards on names of subjects or
property where the field office has placed a stop at another law
enforcement agency or private business such as pawn shops in the event
information comes to the attention of that agency concerning the
subject or property. This is filed numerically by investigative
classification. It is used to insure that the agency where the stop is
placed is notified when the subject is apprehended or the property is
located or recovered. Active in 43 Field Offices.
64. Surveillance Locator Index. Consists of cards with basic data
on individuals and businesses which have come under physical
surveillance in the city in which the field office is located. It is
used for general reference purposes in antiracketeering investigations.
Active in two Field Offices.
65. Telephone Number Index--Gamblers. Contains information on
persons identified usually as a result of a subpoena for the names of
subscribers to particular telephone numbers or toll records for a
particular phone number of area gamblers and bookmakers. The index
cards are filed by the last three digits of the telephone number. The
index is used in gambling investigations. Active in two Field Offices.
66. Telephone Subscriber and Toll Records Check Index. Contains
cards with information on persons identified as the result of a formal
request or subpoena to the phone company for the identity of
subscribers to particular telephone numbers. The index cards are filed
by telephone number and would also include identity of the subscriber,
billing party's identity, subscriber's address, date of request from
the telephone company, and file number. Active in one Field Office.
67. Thieves, Couriers and Fences Photo Index. Consists of photos
and background information on individuals who are or are suspected of
being thieves, couriers, or fences based on their past activity in the
area of interstate transportation of stolen property. It is used as an
investigative aid. Active in four Field Offices.
68. Toll Record Request Index. Contains cards on individuals and
organizations on whom toll records have been obtained in national
security related cases and with respect to which FBIHQ had to prepare a
request letter. It is used primarily to facilitate the handling of
repeat requests on individuals listed. Active at FBIHQ.
69. Top Burglar Album. Consists of photos and background data of
known and suspect top burglars involved in the area of interstate
transportation of stolen property. It is used as an investigative aid.
Active in four Field Offices.
70. Top Echelon Criminal Informer Program (TECIP) Index. Consists
of cards containing identity and brief background information on
individuals who are either furnishing high level information in the
organized crime area or are under development to furnish such
information. The index is used primarily to evaluate, corroborate, and
coordinate informant information and to develop prosecutive data
against racket figures under Federal, State, and local statutes. Active
at FBI Headquarters.
71. Top Ten Program File. Consists of fliers, filed numerically in
a control file, on fugitives considered by the FBI to be 1 of the 10
most wanted. Including a fugitive of the top 10 usually assures a
greater national news coverage as well as nation-wide circulation of
the flier. Active at FBI Headquarters and in 44 Field Offices.
72. Top Thief Program Index. Consists of cards of individuals who
are professional burglars, robbers, or fences dealing in items likely
to be passed in interstate commerce or who travel interstate to commit
the crime. Usually photographs and background information would also be
obtained on the index card. The index is used as an investigative aid.
Active in 27 Field Offices.
73. Truck Hijack Photo Album. Contains photos and descriptive data
of individuals who are suspected truck hijackers. It is used as an
investigative aid and for displaying photos to witnesses and/or victims
to identify unknown subjects in hijacking cases. Active in four Field
Offices.
74. Truck Thief Suspect Photo Album. Consists of photos and
background data on individuals previously arrested or are currently
suspects regarding vehicle theft. The index is used as an investigative
aid. Active in one Field Office.
75. Traveling Criminal Photo Album. Consists of photos with
identifying data of individuals convicted of various criminal offenses
and may be suspects in other offenses. It is used as an investigative
aid. Active in one Field Office.
76. Veterans Administrative (VA)/Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) Matters Index. Consists of cards of individuals who have been
subject of an investigation relative to VA and FHA matters. It is used
as an investigative aid. Active in one Field Office.
77. Wanted Fliers File. Consists of fliers, filed numerically in a
control file, on badly wanted fugitives whose apprehension may be
facilitated by a flier. The flier contains the names, photographs,
aliases, previous convictions, and a caution notice. Active at FBI
Headquarters and in 46 Field Offices.
78. Wheeldex. Contains the nicknames and the case file numbers of
organized crime members. It is used in organized crime investigations.
Active in one Field Office.
79. White House Special Index. Contains cards on all potential
White House appointees, staff members, guests, and visitors that have
been referred to the FBI by the White House security office for a
records check to identify any adverse or derogatory information. This
index is used to expedite such check in view of the tight timeframe
usually required. Active at FBI Headquarters.
80. Witness Protection Program Index. Contains cards on individuals
who have been furnished a new identity by the U.S. Justice Department
because of their testimony in organized crime trials. It is used
primarily to notify the U.S. Marshals Service when information related
to the safety of a protected witness comes to the FBI's attention.
Active at FBI Headquarters.
Authority for maintenance of the system:
Federal Records Act of 1950, Title 44, United States Code, chapter
31, section 3101; and title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter
XII, require Federal agencies to insure that adequate and proper
records are made and preserved to document the organization, functions,
policies, decisions, procedures and transactions and to protect the
legal and financial rights of the Federal Government, title 28, United
States Code, section 534, delegates authority to the Attorney General
to acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal
identification, crime and other records.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including
categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
Records, both investigative and administrative, are maintained in
this system in order to permit the FBI to function efficiently as an
authorized, responsive component of the Department of Justice.
Therefore, information in this system is disclosed to officials and
employees of the Department of Justice, and/or all components thereof,
who have need of the information in the performance of their official
duties.
Personal information from this system may be disclosed as a routine
use to any Federal agency where the purpose in making the disclosure is
compatible with the law enforcement purpose for which it was collected,
e.g., to assist the recipient agency in conducting a lawful criminal or
intelligence investigation, to assist the recipient agency in making a
determination concerning an individual's suitability for employment
and/or trustworthiness for employment and/or trustworthiness for access
clearance purposes, or to assist the recipient agency in the
performance of any authorized function where access to records in this
system is declared by the recipient agency to be relevant to that
function.
In addition, personal information may be disclosed from this system
to members of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government in response
to a specific request, or at the initiation of the FBI, where
disclosure appears relevant to the authorized function of the recipient
judicial office or court system. An example would be where an
individual is being considered for employment by a Federal judge.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to any
state or local government agency directly engaged in the criminal
justice process, e.g., police, prosecution, penal, probation and
parole, and the judiciary, where access is directly related to a law
enforcement function of the recipient agency, e.g., in connection with
a lawful criminal or intelligence investigation, or making a
determination concerning an individual's suitability for employment as
a state or local law enforcement employee or concerning a victim's
compensation under a state statute. Disclosure to a state or local
government agency, (a) not directly engaged in the criminal justice
process or (b) for a licensing or regulatory function, is considered on
an individual basis only under exceptional circumstances, as determined
by the FBI.
Information in this system pertaining to the use, abuse or traffic
of controlled substances may be disclosed as a routine use to federal,
state or local law enforcement agencies and to licensing or regulatory
agencies empowered to engage in the institution and prosecution of
cases before courts and licensing boards in matters relating to
controlled substances, including courts and licensing boards
responsible for the licensing or certification of individuals in the
fields of pharmacy and medicine.
In any health care-related civil or criminal case, investigation,
or matter, information indicating patient harm, neglect, or abuse, or
poor or inadequate quality of care, at a health care facility or by a
health care provider, may be disclosed as a routine use to any Federal,
State, local, tribal, foreign, joint, international, or private entity
that is responsible for regulating, licensing, registering, or
accrediting any health care provider or health care facility, or
enforcing any health care-related laws or regulations. Further,
information indicating an ongoing quality of care problem by a health
care provider or at a health care facility may be disclosed to the
appropriate health plan. Additionally, unless otherwise prohibited by
applicable law, information indicating patient harm, neglect, abuse, or
poor or inadequate quality of care may be disclosed to the affected
patient or his or her representative or guardian at the discretion of
and in the manner determined by the agency in possession of the
information. Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine
use in a proceeding before a court of adjudicative body, e.g., the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Merit Systems
Protection Board, before which the FBI is authorized to appear, when
(a) the FBI or any employee thereof in his or her official capacity, or
(b) any employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department
of Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or (c) the United
States, where the FBI determines it is likely to be affected by the
litigation, is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation
and such records are determined by the FBI to be relevant to the
litigation.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to an
organization or individual in both the public or private sector if
deemed necessary to elicit information or cooperation from the
recipient for use by the FBI in the performance of an authorized
activity. An example would be where the activities of an individual are
disclosed to a member of the public in order to elicit his/her
assistance in our apprehension or detection efforts.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to an
organization or individual in both the public or private sector where
there is reason to believe the recipient is or could become the target
of a particular criminal activity or conspiracy, to the extent the
information is relevant to the protection of life or property.
Information in this system may be disclosed to legitimate agency of
a foreign government where the FBI determines that the information is
relevant to that agency's responsibilities, and dissemination serves
the best interests of the U.S. Government, and where the purpose in
making the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the
information was collected.
Relevant information may be disclosed from this system to the news
media and general public where there exists a legitimate public
interest, e.g., to assist in the location of Federal fugitives, to
provide notification of arrests, and where necessary for protection
from imminent threat of life or property. This would include releases
of information in accordance with 28 CFR 50.2.
A record relating to an actual or potential civil or criminal
violation of the copyright statute, Title 17, United States Code, or
the trademark statutes. Titles 15 and 17, U.S. Code, may be
disseminated to a person injured by such violation to assist him/her in
the institution or maintenance of a suit brought under such titles. The
FBI has received inquiries from private citizens and Congressional
offices on behalf of constituents seeking assistance in locating
individuals such as missing children and heirs to estates. Where the
need is acute, and where it appears FBI files may be the only lead in
locating the individual, consideration will be given to furnishing
relevant information to the requester. Information will be provided
only in those instances where there are reasonable grounds to conclude
from available information the individual being sought would want the
information to be furnished, e.g., an heir to a large estate.
Information with regard to missing children will not be provided where
they have reached their majority.
Information contained in this system, may be made available to a
Member of Congress or staff acting upon the member's behalf when the
member of staff requests the information in behalf of and at the
request of the individual who is the subject of the record.
A record from this system of records may be disclosed as a routine
use to the National Archives and Records Administration and General
Services Administration in records management inspections conducted
under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906, to the extent that
legislation governing the records permits.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing,
retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
The active main files are maintained in hard copy form and some
inactive records are maintained on microfilm. Investigative information
which is maintained in computerized form may be stored in memory, on
disk storage, on computer tape, or on a computer printed listing.
Retrievability:
The FBI General Index must be searched to determine what
information, if any, the FBI may have in its files. Index records, or
pointers to specific FBI files, are created on all manner of subject
matters, but the predominant type record is the name index record. It
should be noted the FBI does not index all individuals who furnish
information or all names developed during the course of an
investigation. Only that information considered pertinent, relevant, or
essential for future retrieval, is indexed. In certain major cases,
individuals interviewed may be indexed to facilitate the administration
of the investigation. The FBI has automated that portion of its index
containing the most recent information--15 years for criminal related
matters and 30 years for intelligence and other type matters.
Automation will not change the ``Central Records System''; it will
only facilitate more economic and expeditious access to the main files.
Searches against the automated records are accomplished on a ``batch
off-line'' basis for certain submitting agencies where the name search
requests conform to FBI specified formats and also in an ``on-line''
mode with the use of video display terminals for other requests. The
FBI will not permit any organization, public or private, outside the
FBI to have direct access to the FBI indices system. All searches
against the indices data base will be performed on site within FBI
space by FBI personnel with the assistance of the automated procedures,
where feasible. Automation of the various FBI field office indices was
completed in 1989. This automation initiative has been on a ``day-one''
basis. This indices system points to specific files within a given
field office. Additionally, certain complicated investigative matters
may be supported by specialized computer systems or by individual
microcomputers. Indices created in these environments are maintained as
part of the particular computer system and accessible only through the
system or through printed listings of the indices. Full text retrieval
is used in a limited number of cases as an investigative technique. It
is not part of the normal search process and is not used as a
substitute for the General Index or computer indices mentioned above.
The FBI will transfer historical records to the National Archives
consistent with 44 U.S.C. 2103. No record of individuals or subject
matter will be retained for transferred files; however, a record of the
file numbers will be retained to provide full accountability of FBI
files and thus preserve the integrity of the filing system.
Safeguards:
Records are maintained in a restricted area and are accessed only
by agency personnel. All FBI employees receive a complete background
investigation prior to being hired. All employees are cautioned about
divulging confidential information or any information contained in FBI
files. Failure to abide by this provision violates Department of
Justice regulations and may violate certain statutes providing maximum
severe penalties of a ten thousand dollar fine or 10 years imprisonment
or both. Employees who resign or retire are also cautioned about
divulging information acquired in the jobs. Registered mail is used to
transmit routine hard copy records between field offices. Highly
classified records are hand carried by Special Agents or personnel of
the Armed Forces Courier Service. Highly classified or sensitive
privacy information, which is electronically transmitted between field
offices, is transmitted in encrypted form to prevent interception and
interpretation. Information transmitted in teletype form is placed in
the main files of both the receiving and transmitting field offices.
Field offices involved in certain complicated investigative matters may
be provided with on-line access to the duplicative computerized
information which is maintained for them on disk storage in the FBI
Computer Center in Washington, DC, and this computerized data is also
transmitted in encrypted form.
Retention and disposal:
As the result of an extensive review of FBI records conducted by
NARA, records evaluated as historical and permanent will be transferred
to the National Archives after established retention periods and
administrative needs of the FBI have elapsed. As deemed necessary,
certain records may be subject to restricted examination and usage, as
provided by 44 U.S.C. section 2104.
FBI record disposition programs relevant to this System are
conducted in accordance with the FBI Records Retention Plan and
Disposition Schedule which was approved by the Archivist of the United
States and the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.
Investigative, applicant and administrative records which meet the
destruction criteria will be destroyed after 20 or 30 years at FBI
Headquarters and after 1, 5, 10 or 20 years in FBI Field Offices.
Historical records will be transferred to the National Archives after
30 or 50 years, contingent upon investigative and administrative needs.
The administrative indices and listings described within this System
were appraised separately and disposition authority established. (Job
No. NC1-65-82-4 and amendments)
System manager(s) and address:
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC 20535.
Notification procedure:
Same as above.
Record access procedures:
A request for access to a record from the system shall be made in
writing with the envelope and the letter clearly marked ``Privacy
Access Request''. Include in the request your full name, complete
address, date of birth, place of birth, notarized signature, and other
identifying data you may wish to furnish to assist in making a proper
search of our records. Also include the general subject matter of the
document of its file number. The requester will also provide a return
address for transmitting the information. Requests for access to
information maintained at FBI Headquarters must be addressed to the
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC 20535.
Requests for information maintained at FBI field divisions or Legal
Attaches must be made separately and addressed to the specific field
division or Legal Attache listed in the appendix to this system notice.
Contesting record procedures:
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in
the system should also direct their request to the Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC 20535, stating clearly and
concisely what information is being contested, the reasons for
contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information sought.
Record source categories:
The FBI, by the very nature and requirement to investigate
violations of law within its investigative jurisdiction and its
responsibility for the internal security of the United States, collects
information from a wide variety of sources. Basically, it is the result
of investigative efforts and information furnished by other Government
agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the general public, informants,
witnesses, and public source material.
Systems exempted from certain provisions of the act:
The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsections
(c)(3), (d), (e) (1), (2) and (3), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (e)(8) (f), (g),
of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j) and (k). Rules have
been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553
(b), (c) and (e).
Appendix of Field Divisions and Legal Attaches for the Federal Bureau
of Investigation Field Divisions; Justice/FBI-999
5th Floor, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12201.
POB 25186, Albuquerque, NM 87125.
POB 100560, Anchorage, AK 99510.
POB 1683, Atlanta, GA 30370.
7142 Ambassador Road, Baltimore, MD 21207.
2122 Building, Birmingham, AL 35203.
One Center Plaza, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02108.
111 West Huron Street, Buffalo, NY 14202.
6010 Kenley Lane, Charlotte, NC 28217.
219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604.
POB 1277, Cincinnati, OH 45201.
1240 E. 9th St., Cleveland, OH 44199.
POB 137, Columbia, SC 29202.
1801 W. Lamar, Dallas, TX 75202.
POB 1229, Denver, CO 80201.
POB 2118, Detroit, MI 48231.
700 E. San Antonio Ave., El Paso, TX 79901.
POB 50164, Honolulu, HI 96850.
POB 61369, Houston, TX 77208.
POB 1186, Indianapolis, IN 45206.
100 W. Capitol St., Jackson, MS 39269.
POB 8928, Jacksonville, FL 32239.
POB 2449, Kansas City, MO 64142.
POB 10368, Knoxville, TN 37919.
POB 16032, Las Vegas, NV 89101.
POB 21470, Little Rock, AR 72221-1470.
11000 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024.
POB 2467, Louisville, KY 40201.
167 N. Main St., Memphis, TN 38103.
POB 592418, Miami, FL 33159.
POB 2058, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
111 Washington Ave. South S-1100, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
POB 2128, Mobile, AL 36652.
POB 1158, Newark, NJ 07101.
POB 2058, New Haven, CT 06521.
POB 51930, New Orleans, LA 70151.
POB 1425, New York, NY 10008.
POB 3828, Norfolk, VA 23514.
POB 54511, Oklahoma City, OK 73154.
POB 548, Omaha, NE 68101.
600 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA 19106.
201 E. Indianola, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
POB 1315, Pittsburgh, PA 15230.
POB 709, Portland, OR 97207.
POB 12325, Richmond, VA 23241.
POB 13130, Sacramento, CA 95813.
POB 7251, St. Louis, MO 63177.
125 S. State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84138.
POB 1630, San Antonio, TX 78296.
880 Front St., San Diego, CA 92188.
POB 36015, San Francisco, CA 94102.
POB BT, San Juan, PR 00936.
915 2nd Ave., Seattle, WA 98174.
POB 3646, Springfield, IL 62708.
POB 172177, Tampa, FL 33602.
Washington Field Office, Washington, DC 20535.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy, Quantico, VA 22135.
Legal Attaches: (Send c/o the American Embassy for the Cities
indicated).
Athens, Greece (PSC 108, Box 45, APO AE 09842)
Bangkok, Thailand (Box 67, APO AP 96546).
Bern, Switzerland.
Bogota, Columbia (APO, Miami 34038).
Bonn, Germany (Box 310, APO, New York 09080).
Bridgetown, Barbados (Box B, FPO, Miami 34054).
Brussels, Belgium (APO, New York 09667).
Canberra, Australia (APO, San Francisco 96404-0001).
Caracas, Venezuela (Unit 4966, APO AA 34037).
Hong Kong, B.C.C. (FPO, San Francisco 96659-0002).
London, England (Box 2, FPO, New York 09509).
Madrid, Spain (PSC 61, Box 0001, APO AE 09642).
Manila, Philippines (APO, San Francisco 96528).
Mexico City, Mexico (POB 3087, Laredo, TX 78044-3087).
Montevideo, Uruguay (APO, Miami 34035).
Ottawa, Canada.
Panama City, Panama (Box E, APO, Miami 34002).
Paris, France (APO, New York 09777).
Rome, Italy (APO, New York 09794).
Tokyo, Japan (APO, San Francisco 96503).
Vienna, Austria (Unit 27937, Box 37, APO AE 09222).
______
[From the Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 61, March 29, 2001]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 223-2001]
Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.
552a, notice is given that the Department of Justice proposes to modify
the following systems of records:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATR-006 Antitrust Information 2-20-98 63 FR 8660.
Management System (AMIS)--Matter
Report.
CIV-001 Civil Division Case File 2-20-98 63 FR 8665.
System.
CRM-001 Central Criminal 2-20-98 63 FR 8663.
Division Index File and
Associated Records.
CRM-012 Organized Crime and 11-26-90 55 FR 49147.
Racketeering Section, General
Index File and Associated
Records.
CRT-001 Central Civil Rights 2-20-98 63 FR 8661.
Division Index File and
Associated Records.
FBI-002 The FBI Central Records 2-20-98 63 FR 8671.
System.
TAX-001 Tax Division Central 2-20-98 63 FR 8684.
Classification Cards, Index
Docket Cards, and Associated
Records--Criminal Tax Cases.
TAX-002 Tax Division Central 2-20-98 63 FR 8685.
Classification Cards, Index
Docket Cards, and Associated
Records--Civil Tax Cases.
USA-005 Civil Case Files........ 2-20-98 63 FR 8666.
USA-007 Criminal Case Files..... 12-21-99 64 FR 71499.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has modified the above systems of records to include
a new routine use that allows disclosure of information relating to
health care fraud to private health plans, associations of private
health plans, health insurers, and associations of health insurers, for
the following purposes: To promote the coordination of efforts to
prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute health care fraud; to
assist victims of such fraud to obtain restitution; to enable private
health plans to participate in health care fraud task force activities;
and to assist tribunals having jurisdiction over claims against private
health plans. It should be noted that with regard to taxpayer
information, the addition of this routine use is not intended to affect
the confidentiality of such taxpayer information as provided for in 26
U.S.C. 6103.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is
given a 30-day period in which to comment; and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy
Act, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the
system. Therefore, please submit any comments by [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register]. The public, OMB, and the Congress
are invited to submit any comments to Mary E. Cahill, Management and
Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, DC 20530-0001 (Room 1400, National Place
Building).
A description of the modification to the Department's systems of
records is provided below. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the
Department has provided a report to OMB and the Congress.
Dated: March 19, 2001.
Stephen R. Colgate,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
DOJ Privacy Act Systems of Records
ATR-006 Antitrust Information Management System (AMIS)--Matter
Report.
CIV-001 Civil Division Case File System.
CRM-001 Central Criminal Division Index File and Associated
Records.
CRM-012 Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, General Index
File and Associated Records.
CRT-001 Central Civil Rights Division Index File and Associated
Records.
FBI-002 The FBI Central Records System.
TAX-001 Tax Division Central Classification Cards, Index Docket
Cards, and Associated Records--Criminal Tax Cases.
TAX-002 Tax Division Central Classification Cards, Index Docket
Cards, and Associated Records--Civil Tax Cases.
USA-005 Civil Case Files.
USA-007 Criminal Case Files.
* * * * * * *
Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including
Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses:
Information relating to health care fraud may be disclosed to
private health plans, or associations of private health plans, and
health insurers, or associations of health insurers, for the following
purposes: to promote the coordination of efforts to prevent, detect,
investigate, and prosecute health care fraud; to assist efforts by
victims of health care fraud to obtain restitution; to enable private
health plans to participate in local, regional, and national health
care fraud task force activities; and to assist tribunals having
jurisdiction over claims against private health plans.
* * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-7676 Filed 3-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-14-M
______
[From the Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 191, October 5, 1993]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 79-93]
* * * * * * *
JUSTICE/FBI-015
System name:
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC).
System location:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Training Division, FBI Academy,
Behavioral Science Unit, Quantico, Virginia 22135.
Categories of individuals covered by the system:
A. Individuals who relate in any manner to official FBI
investigations into violent crimes including, but not limited to,
subjects, suspects, victims, witnesses, close relatives, medical
personnel, and associates who are relevant to an investigation.
B. Individuals who are the subject of unsolicited information or
who offer unsolicited information, and law enforcement personnel who
request assistance and/or make inquiries concerning records.
C. Individuals who are the subject of violent crime research
studies including, but not limited to, criminal personality profiles,
scholarly journals, and news media references.
Categories of records in the system:
The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime will maintain
in both manual and automated formats case investigation reports on all
forms of solved and unsolved violent crimes. These violent crimes
include, but are not limited to, acts or attempted acts of murder,
kidnapping, incendiary arson or bombing, rape, physical torture, sexual
trauma, or evidence of violent forms of death. Less than ten percent of
the records which are analyzed may not be directly related to violent
activities.
A. Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP) case reports
submitted to the FBI by a duly constituted Federal, State, county,
municipal, or foreign law enforcement agency in any violent criminal
matter. VICAP reports include, but are not limited to, crime scene
descriptions, victim and offender descriptive data, laboratory reports,
criminal history records, court records, news media references, crime
scene photographs, and statements.
B. Violent crime case reports submitted by FBI headquarters or
field offices, and case reports submitted to the FBI by a duly
constituted Federal, State, county, municipal, or foreign law
enforcement agency in any violent criminal matter.
C. Violent crime research studies, scholarly journal articles,
textbooks, training materials, and news media references of interest to
NCAVC personnel.
D. An index of all detected trends, patterns, profiles and methods
of operation of known and unknown violent criminals whose records are
maintained in the system.
E. An index of the names, addresses, and contact telephone numbers
of professional individuals and organizations who are in a position to
furnish assistance to the FBI's NCAVC operation.
F. An index of public record sources for historical, statistical
and demographic data collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
G. An alphabetical name index pertaining to all individuals whose
records are maintained in the system.
Authority for maintenance of the system:
44 U.S.C. Section 3101; 41 CFR subpart 101-11.2 and 28 U.S.C.
Section 534.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including
categories of users and the purposes of such uses:
Currently, the NCAVC is administered by the FBI through its
Training Division, located at the FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia. Its
primary mission is to consolidate research, training, and operational
support activities for the express purposes of providing expertise to
any legitimate law enforcement agency confronted with unusual, bizarre,
and/or particularly vicious or repetitive violent crimes.
Records described above are maintained in this system to permit the
FBI to function efficiently as an authorized, responsive component of
the Department of Justice. Therefore, the information in this system is
disclosed to officials and employees of the Department of Justice, and/
or all components thereof, who need the information to perform their
official duties.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to any
Federal, State, local, or foreign government agency directly engaged in
the criminal justice process where access is directly related to a law
enforcement function of the recipient agency in connection with the
tracking identification, and apprehension of persons believed to be
engaged in repeated or exceptionally violent acts of criminal behavior.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use in a
proceeding before a court or adjudicative body, e.g., the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Merit Systems Protection
Board, before which the FBI is authorized to appear, when (a) the FBI
or any employee thereof in his or her official capacity, or (b) any
employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of
Justice has agreed to represent the employee, or (c) the United States,
where the FBI determines it is likely to be affected by the litigation,
is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation and such
records are determined by the FBI to be relevant to the litigation.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to an
organization or individual in both the public or private sector
pursuant to an appropriate legal proceeding or, if deemed necessary, to
elicit information or cooperation from the recipient for use by the FBI
in the performance of an authorized activity. An example could be where
the activities of an individual are disclosed to a member of the public
to elicit his/her assistance in FBI apprehension or detection efforts.
Information in this system may be disclosed as a routine use to an
organization or individual in the public or private sector where there
is reason to believe the recipient is or could become the target of a
particular criminal activity or conspiracy and to the extent the
information is relevant to the protection of life or property.
Relevant information may be disclosed from this system to the news
media and general public where there exists a legitimate public
interest. Examples would include: To obtain public or media assistance
in the tracking, identifying, and apprehending of persons believed to
be engaged in repeated acts of violent criminal behavior; to notify the
public and/or media of arrests; to protect the public from imminent
threat to life or property where necessary; and to disseminate
information to the public and/or media to obtain cooperation with
violent crime research, evaluation, and statistical programs.
Information in this system may be disclosed as is necessary to
appropriately respond to congressional inquiries on behalf of
constituents.
A record from a system of records may be disclosed as a routine use
to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in records
management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904
and 2906 to the extent that legislation governing the record permits.
Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing,
retaining, and disposing of records in the system:
Storage:
Information in the system is stored manually in locked file
cabinets, either in its natural state or on microfilm, at the NCAVC in
Quantico, Virginia. The active main files are maintained in hard copy
form and some inactive records are maintained on microfilm.
In addition, some of the information is stored in computerized data
storage devices at the NCAVC and FBI Computer Center in Washington, DC.
Investigative information which is maintained in computerized form may
be stored in memory on disk storage on computer tape, or on computer
printed listings.
Retrievability:
On-line computer access to NCAVC files is achieved by using the
following search descriptors:
A. A data base which contains the names of individuals, their birth
dates, physical descriptions, and other identification numbers such as
FBI numbers, if such have been assigned.
B. Summary variables contained on VICAP reports submitted to the
NCAVC as previously described.
C. Key words citations to violent crime research studies. scholarly
journal articles, textbooks, training materials, and media references.
Safeguards:
Records are maintained in restricted areas and accessed only by FBI
employees. All FBI employees receive a complete pre-employment
background investigation. All employees are cautioned about divulging
confidential information or any information contained in FBI files.
Failure to abide by this provision violates Department of Justice
regulations and may violate certain statutes providing maximum severe
penalties of a ten thousand dollar fine or 10 years' imprisonment or
both. Employees who resign or retire are also cautioned about divulging
information acquired in the job.
Registered mail is used to transmit routine hard copy records
between field offices. Highly classified records are hand carried by
Special Agents or personnel of the Armed Forces Courier Service. Highly
classified or sensitive privacy information, which is electronically
transmitted between field offices and to and from FBI Headquarters, is
transmitted in encrypted form to prevent interception and
interpretation.
Information transmitted in teletype form between the NCAVC in
Quantico, Virginia and the FBI Computer Center in Washington, DC, is
encrypted prior to transmission at both places to ensure
confidentiality and security of the data.
FBI field offices involved in certain complicated, investigative
matters may be provided with on-line access to the computerized
information which is maintained for them on disc storage in the FBI
Computer Center in Washington, DC. This computerized data is also
transmitted in encrypted form.
Retention and disposal:
Records are proposed for destruction after 50 years or upon
termination of the program, whichever is earlier. The disposition
schedule is pending with NARA as Job No. N1-65-88-13.
System manager(s) and address:
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 10th and Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20535.
Notification procedure:
Address inquiries to the System Manager.
Record access procedures:
Requests for access to records in this system shall be made in
writing with the envelope and the letter clearly marked ``Privacy
Access Request.'' The request must provide the full name, complete
address, date of birth, place of birth, and notarized signature of the
individual who is the subject of the record requested. The request
should also include the general subject matter of the document or its
file number--along with any other known information which may assist in
making a search of the records. The request must also provide a return
addressing for transmitting the information. Access requests should be
addressed to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington,
DC 20535.
Contesting record procedures:
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in
the system should also direct their request to the Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC 20535. The request should state
clearly and concisely (1) the reasons for contesting the information,
and (2) the proposed amendment to the information.
Record source categories:
The FBI, by the very nature of its responsibilities to investigate
violations of law within its investigative jurisdiction and ensure the
internal security of the United States, collects information from a
wide variety of sources. Basically, information is obtained, as a
result of investigative efforts, from other Government agencies, law
enforcement agencies, the general public, informants, witnesses, and
public source material.
Systems exempted from certain provisions of the act:
The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsections
(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (f) and (g) of the Privacy Act
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) and (k)(2). Rules have been
promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 (b),
(c), and (e).
______
[From the Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 121, June 22, 2001]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[AAG/A Order No. 233-2001]
Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is
hereby given that the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), is establishing ten ``blanket'' routine uses to be
applicable to more than one FBI system of records. Further, the FBI is
modifying the following systems of records:
Bureau Mailing Lists, Justice/FBI-003 (previously published on
October 5, 1993, at 58 FR 51846); and
Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Indices, Justice/FBI-006
(previously published on March 10, 1992, at 57 FR 8473).
Opportunity for Comment: The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(r) and
(11)) requires that the public be given 30 days in which to comment on
any new or amended uses of information in a system of records. In
addition, in accordance with Privacy Act requirements (5 U.S.C.
552a(r)), the Department of Justice has provided a report on these
modifications to OMB and the Congress. OMB, which has oversight
responsibilities under the Act, requires that OMB and the Congress be
given 40 days in which to review major changes to Privacy Act systems.
Therefore, the public, OMB, and the Congress are invited to submit
written comments on this modification.
Address Comments or Request for Further Information to: Mary E.
Cahill, Management Analyst, Management and Planning Staff, Justice
Management Division, Department of Justice, 1400 National Place,
Washington, DC 20530.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These proposed changes will be effective August 1,
2001, unless comments are received that result in a contrary
determination.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FBI is proposing to establish ten
blanket routine uses in order to: (1) Foster greater public
understanding by simplifying and consolidating FBI Privacy Act
issuances; (2) minimize through use of standardized wording the
potential for misunderstanding or misinterpretation which might arise
from unintended variations in different versions of common routine
uses; and (3) reduce costs and duplication of effort in the publication
and maintenance of FBI Privacy Act issuances. Unless this or other
published notice expressly provides otherwise, these blanket routine
uses will apply to existing FBI systems of records as indicated below
and to all FBI systems of records created or modified hereafter.
However, the FBI is not at this time applying blanket routine uses to
the National DNA Index System (NDIS) (Justice/FBI-017) or to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) (Justice/FBI-
018). (Any blanket routine uses which the FBI may in the future propose
to apply to these two systems will be implemented by express reference
in revisions to the respective systems notices.)
In large part these blanket routine uses standardize wording of
routine uses already promulgated for one or more FBI or DOJ systems.
The wording of a blanket use may differ somewhat from the existing
counterpart(s). These differences generally do not reflect
substantially different uses; however, some uses are clarified or
broadened as to when and to whom disclosures may be made. Furthermore,
Blanket Routine Use 9 is a new use not now reflected in any FBI system.
Upon taking effect, these blanket routine uses will apply to the
FBI systems indicated below:
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), JUSTICE/FBI-001 (last
published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1999, at 64 FR
52343);
FBI Central Records System, JUSTICE/FBI-002 (last published in the
Federal Register on February 20, 1998, at 63 FR 8671);
Bureau Mailing Lists, JUSTICE/FBI-003 (published in today's Federal
Register);
Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Indices, JUSTICE/FBI-006 (published
in today's Federal Register);
FBI Automated Payroll System, JUSTICE/FBI-007 (last published in
the Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at 58 FR 51874);
Bureau Personnel Management System (BPMS), JUSTICE/FBI-008 (last
published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at 58 FR 51875);
Fingerprint Identification Records System (FIRS), JUSTICE/FBI-009
(last published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1999, at 64 FR
52347);
Employee Travel Vouchers and Individual Earning Records, JUSTICE/
FBI-010 (last published in the Federal Register on December 11, 1987,
at 52 FR 47248);
Employee Health Records, JUSTICE/FBI-011 (last published in the
Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at 58 FR 51875);
Time Utilization Record/Keeping (TURK) System, JUSTICE/FBI-012
(last published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at 58 FR
51876);
Security Access Control System (SACS), JUSTICE/FBI-013 (last
published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at 58 FR 51877);
FBI Alcoholism Program, JUSTICE/FBI-014 (last published in the
Federal Register on December 11, 1987, at 52 FR 47251);
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), JUSTICE/
FBI-015 (last published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1993, at
58 FR 51877);
FBI/Counterdrug Information Indices Systems (CIIS), JUSTICE/FBI-016
(last published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994, at 59 FR
29824);
The routine uses currently published for each system will also
continue to apply to that system. As individual FBI system notices are
hereafter revised, we will eliminate individual system routine uses
which duplicate blanket routine uses and add express reference to the
applicability of the blanket routine uses.
The Department is also modifying the Bureau Mailing Lists and the
ELSUR systems of records in order to clarify and more accurately
describe them. The Bureau Mailing Lists system notice is being modified
to clarify the categories of individuals covered by the system, the
categories of records in the system, and the record access procedures.
The existing routine uses are modified to include a system specific
routine use which permits the disclosure of system records to public
and/or private entities where such disclosures may promote, assist, or
otherwise serve law enforcement interests. The notice also provides
that records can be disclosed in accordance with the blanket routine
uses that are concurrently being established for FBI records systems.
The ELSUR notice is being modified to include a new category of
records in the system, ``reference records.'' Additionally, the ELSUR
notice clarifies the record access procedures. The routine uses for the
ELSUR system were also modified to reflect three additional system
specific routine uses which permit the disclosure of system records to
public and/or private entities where: (1) Such disclosures may promote,
assist, or otherwise serve law enforcement interests; (2) the FBI deems
it reasonable and helpful in eliciting information or cooperation from
the recipient for use by the FBI in the performance of an authorized
function; or (3) there is reason to believe that a person or entity
could become the target of a particular criminal activity or
conspiracy. In addition, the notice provides that records may be
disclosed pursuant to the proposed blanket routine uses being published
simultaneously herein.
Both the Bureau Mailing Lists and the ELSUR systems are being
republished to reflect these and other minor changes, including the
addition of a ``Purpose'' section to both notices.
A description of the proposed ten blanket routine uses and the
modification to the Bureau Mailing Lists and the ELSUR systems of
records is provided below.
Dated: June 11, 2001.
Janis A. Sposato,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
JUSTICE/FBI-BRU
SUBJECT:
Blanket Routine Uses (BRU) Applicable to More Than One FBI Privacy
Act System of Records.
APPLICABILITY:
The following routine uses describe those types of disclosures
which are common to more than one FBI Privacy Act system of records and
which the FBI is establishing as ``blanket'' routine uses. Unless this
or other published notice expressly provides otherwise, these blanket
routine uses shall apply, without need of further implementation, to
every existing FBI Privacy Act system of records and to all FBI systems
of records created or modified hereafter. These blanket routine uses
supplement but do not replace any routine uses that are separately
published in the notices of individual record systems to which the
blanket routine uses apply.
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN FBI SYSTEMS,
INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF
SUCH USES:
System records may be disclosed to the following persons or
entities under the circumstances or for the purposes described below,
to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for
which the information was collected. (These routine uses are not meant
to be mutually exclusive and may overlap in some cases.)
BRU-1. Violations of Law, Regulation, Rule, Order, or Contract. If
any system record, on its face or in conjunction with other
information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law
(whether civil or criminal), regulation, rule, order, or contract, the
pertinent record may be disclosed to the appropriate entity (whether
federal, state, local, joint, tribal, foreign, or international), that
is charged with the responsibility of investigating, prosecuting, and/
or enforcing such law, regulation, rule, order, or contract.
BRU-2. Non-FBI Employees. To contractors, grantees, experts,
consultants, students, or other performing or working on a contract,
service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the
Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function.
BRU-3. Appropriate Disclosures to the Public. To the news media or
members of the general public in furtherance of a legitimate law
enforcement or public safety function as determined by the FBI, e.g.,
to assist in locating fugitives; to provide notifications of arrests;
to provide alerts, assessments, or similar information on potential
threats to life, health, or property; or to keep the public
appropriately informed of other law enforcement or FBI matters or other
matters of legitimate public interest where disclosure could not
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy. (The availability of information in pending criminal
or civil cases will be governed by the provisions of 28 CFR 50.2.)
BRU-4. Courts or Adjudicative Bodies. To a court or adjudicative
body, in matters in which (a) the FBI or any FBI employee in his or her
official capacity, (b) any FBI employee in his or her individual
capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the
employee, or (c) the United States, is or could be a party to the
litigation, is likely to be affected by the litigation, or has an
official interest in the litigation, and disclosure of system records
has been determined by the FBI to be arguably relevant to the
litigation. Similar disclosures may be made in analogous situations
related to assistance provided to the Federal Government by non-FBI
employees (see BRU-2).
BRU-5. Parties. To an actual or potential party or his or her
attorney for the purpose of negotiating or discussing such matters as
settlement of the case or matter, or informal discovery proceedings, in
matters in which the FBI has an official interest and in which the FBI
determines records in the system to be arguably relevant.
BRU-6. As Mandated by Law. To such recipients and under such
circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or
treaty.
BRU-7. Members of Congress. To a Member of Congress or a person on
his or her staff acting on the Member's behalf when the request is made
on behalf and at the request of the individual who is the subject of
the record.
BRU-8. NARA/GSA Records Management. To the National Archives and
Records Administration and the General Services Administration for
records management inspections and such other purposes conducted under
the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
BRU-9. Auditors. To any agency, organization, or individual for the
purposes of performing authorized audit or oversight operations of the
FBI and meeting related reporting requirements.
BRU-10. Former Employees. The DOJ may disclose relevant and
necessary information to a former employee of the Department for
purposes of: responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or
local government entity or professional licensing authority, in
accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating
communications with a former employee that may be necessary for
personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department
requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former
employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of
responsibility. (Such disclosures will be effected under procedures
established in title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 16.300-
301 and DOJ Order 2710.8C, including any future revisions.)
FBI RECORDS SYSTEMS TO WHICH THESE BLANKET ROUTINE USES DO
NOT APPLY:
These blanket routine uses shall not apply to the following FBI
Privacy Act systems of records (to which shall apply only those routine
uses established in the records system notice for the particular
system):
JUSTICE/FBI-017, National DNA Index System (NDIS) (last published
in the Federal Register on July 18, 1996, at 61 FR 37495); and
JUSTICE/FBI-018, National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) (last published in the Federal Register on November 25, 1998, at
63 FR 65,223).
JUSTICE/FBI-003
SYSTEM NAME:
Bureau Mailing Lists.
SYSTEM LOCATION:
Records may be maintained at all locations at which the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates, including: J. Edgar Hoover
Bldg., 935 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20535; FBI Academy,
Quantico, VA 22135; FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Rd., Clarksburg, WV 26306; and FBI field
offices, legal attaches, and information technology centers as listed
on the FBI's Internet website, http://www.fbi.gov, including any future
revisions to the website.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
All persons appearing on mailing lists maintained throughout the
FBI to facilitate mailings to multiple addressees in furtherance of FBI
activities. These include persons who have requested Bureau material,
persons who are routinely forwarded unsolicited Bureau material and who
meet established criteria (generally law enforcement or closely related
interests), and persons who may be in a position to furnish assistance
in furtherance of the FBI's mission. These do not include persons on
mailing lists not encompassed within this system as described in the
section titled ``Categories of Records in the System.''
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
Records may include name, address, business affiliation, and
supplemental information related to addressees and relevant to a list's
purpose. These do not, however, include mailing lists which have been
incorporated into some other FBI records system, such as a mailing list
supporting a particular investigation maintained as an investigative
record within the FBI's Central Records System.
AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
Title 5, United States Code, section 301; title 44, United States
Code, section 3101; title 28, United States Code, section 533; and
title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, section 0.85.
PURPOSE(S):
System records are used for mailing FBI material to multiple
addressees, via hard copy, e-mail, or other means of distribution, in
furtherance of FBI activities. For example, various fugitive alerts are
furnished to local law enforcement agencies, investigations periodicals
are provided to law enforcement professionals, and information on local
law enforcement issues may be provided to community leaders.
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
The FBI may disclose relevant system records in accordance with any
blanket routine uses established for FBI records systems. See Blanket
Routine Uses Applicable for FBI records systems. See Blanket Routine
Uses Applicable to More Than One FBI Privacy Act System of Records,
Justice/FBI-BRU, as published today in the Federal Register (and any
future revisions).
In addition, as a routine use specific to this system, the FBI may
disclose relevant system records to the following persons or entities
under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the
extent such disclosures are comptiable with the purpose for which the
information was collected. (Routine uses are not meant to be mutually
exclusive and may overlap in some cases.)
A. To a federal, state, local, joint, tribal, foreign,
international, or other public agency/organization, or to any person or
entity in either the public or private sector, domestic or entity in
either the public or private sector, domestic or foreign, where such
disclosure may promote, assist, or otherwise serve law enforcement
interests. By way of example and not limitation, such disclosures may
for instance include: Sharing names of law enforcement professionals
receiving FBI periodicals with law enforcement agencies interested in
reaching a similar audience; sharing information of intelligence value
with other law enforcement on intelligence agencies to whose lawful
responsibilities the information may be germane; or sharing information
pertinent to victim/witness assistance with local government entities
in furtherance of such assistance.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING,
RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
Most information is maintained in computerized form and stored in
memory, on disk storage, on computer tape, or other computer media.
However, some information may also be maintained in hard copy (paper)
or other form.
RETRIEVABILITY:
Information typically will be retrieved by an ID number assigned by
computer or by name of person or organization.
SAFEGUARDS:
System records are maintained in limited access space in FBI
facilities and offices. Computerized data is password protected. All
FBI personnel are required to pass an extensive background
investigation. The information is accessed only by authorized FBI
personnel or by non-FBI personnel properly authorized to assist in the
conduct of an agency function related to these records.
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
FBI offices revised the lists as necessary. The records are
destroyed, under authority granted by the National Archives and Records
Administration, when administrative needs are satisfied (Job. No. NC1-
65-82-4, part E, item 13 (I)).
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
Director, FBI, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20535-
0001.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
Same as Record Access Procedures.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
A request for access to a record from the system shall be made in
writing with the envelope and the letter clearly market ``Privacy Act
Request''. Include in the request your full name and complete address.
The requester must sign the request; and, to verify it, the signature
must be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits
statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for
notarization. You may submit any other identifying data you wish to
furnish to assist in making a proper search of the system. Requests for
access to information maintained at FBI Headquarters must be addressed
to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20535-0001. Requests for information
maintained at FBI field offices, legal attaches, information technology
centers, or other locations must be made separately and addressed to
the specific field office, legal attache, information technology
center, or other location as listed on the FBI's Internet website,
http://www.fbi.gov, including any future revisions to the website.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in
the system should also direct their request to the appropriate FBI
office, stating clearly and concisely what information is being
contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to
the information sought.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
The mailing list information is based on information supplied by
affected individuals/organizations, public source data, and/or
information already in other FBI records systems.
SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
None.
JUSTICE/FBI 006
SYSTEM NAME:
Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Indices.
SYSTEM LOCATION:
Records may be maintained at all locations at which the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates, including: J. Edgar Hoover
Bldg., 935 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20535; and FBI field
offices and information technology centers as listed on the FBI's
Internet website, http://www.fbi.gov, including any future revisions to
the website.
CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
Individuals and entities who have been the targets of electronic
surveillance coverage sought, conducted, or administered by the FBI
pursuant to a court order or other authority; those who have been a
party to a communication monitored/recorded electronically pursuant to
a court order, consensual monitoring, or other authorized monitoring
sought, conducted, or administered by the FBI; and those who own,
lease, license, hold a possessor interest in, or commonly use the
location subjected to electronic surveillance.
CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
The ELSUR Indices are comprised of four types of records:
1. Principal records identify, by true name or best known name, all
persons, entities, and facilities who have been the targets of
electronic surveillance coverage sought, conducted, or administered by
the FBI pursuant to a court order or other authority. These records
include, but are not limited to, persons, entities, and facilities
named in an application filed by the FBI in support of an affidavit
seeking a court order to conduct or administer an electronic
surveillance. Principal records may also include descriptive data
associated with the name appearing on the record.
2. Proprietary-interest records identify entities and/or
individuals who own, lease, license, hold a possessory interest in, or
commonly use the location subjected to an electronic surveillance.
Proprietary-interest records may also include descriptive data
associated with the name appearing on the record.
3. Intercept records identify, by true name or best known name,
individuals who have been reasonably identified by a first name or
initial and a last name as being a party to a communication monitored/
recorded electronically by the FBI pursuant to an electronic
surveillance. Intercept records also identify entities that have been a
party to a communication monitored/recorded electronically by the FBI
pursuant to an electronic surveillance. Intercept records may include
descriptive data associated with the name appearing on the record.
4. Reference records identify, by partial name, such as a first
name only, last name only, code name, nickname, or alias those
individuals who have been a party to a communication monitored/recorded
electronically by the FBI pursuant to an electronic surveillance, and
may include descriptive data associated with the individual. If the
individual is later identified by a more complete name, e.g., through
further monitoring or normal investigative procedures, the reference
record is re-entered as an intercept record.
AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
The ELSUR Indices were initiated in October, 1966, at the
recommendation of the Department of Justice and relate to electronic
surveillance sought, administered, and/or conducted by the FBI since
January 1, 1960. The authority for the maintenance of these records is
title 5, United States Code, section 301; title 44, United States Code,
section 3101; title 18, United States Code, section 2510, et seq.;
title 18, United States Code, section 3504; title 28, United States
Code, section 533, title 50, United States Code 1801, et seq.; and
title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, section 0.85.
PURPOSE(S):
These records are used by the FBI to maintain certain information
regarding electronic surveillance sought, conducted or administered by
the FBI in order to permit the agency to respond to judicial inquiries
about possible electronic surveillance coverage of any individual or
entity involved in Federal court proceedings and to enable the
Government to certify, as requested by federal, state or local law
enforcement agencies, whether or not an individual, entity, facility,
or place on whom a court ordered authority is being sought for
electronic surveillance coverage has ever been subjected to electronic
surveillance coverage in the past.
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING
CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
The FBI may disclose relevant system records in accordance with any
blanket routine uses established for FBI records systems. See Blanket
Routine Uses Applicable to More Than One FBI Privacy Act System of
Records, Justice/FBI-BRU, as published today in the Federal Register
(and any future revisions).
In addition, as routine uses specific to this system, the FBI may
disclose relevant system records to the following persons or entities
under the circumstances or for the purposes described below, to the
extent such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the
information was collected. (Routine uses are not meant to be mutually
exclusive and may overlap in some cases.)
A. To the judiciary in response to inquiries about possible
electronic surveillance coverage of any individual or entity involved
in Federal court proceedings.
B. To federal, state, and local law enforcement officers to enable
the government to certify whether or not an individual, entity,
facility, or place on whom a court ordered authority is being sought
for electronic surveillance coverage has ever been subjected to
electronic surveillance coverage in the past.
C. To a federal, state, local, joint, tribal, foreign,
international, or other public agency/organization, or to any person or
entity in either the public or private sector, domestic or foreign,
where such disclosure may promote, assist, or otherwise serve law
enforcement interests. By way of example and not limitation, such
disclosures may for instance include: Sharing information of
intelligence value with other law enforcement or intelligence agencies
to whose lawful responsibilities the information may be germane;
disclosing information to another law enforcement or intelligence
agency which may bear on the suitability of a person for employment or
continued employment with that agency; disclosing information to a
cognizant employer or clearance-granting authority which may bear on
the trustworthiness of a person to obtain or retain a security
clearance; or sharing information pertinent to victim/witness
assistance with local government entities in furtherance of such
assistance.
D. To any person or entity in either the public or private sector,
domestic or foreign, if deemed by the FBI to be reasonable and helpful
in eliciting information or cooperation from the recipient for use by
the FBI in the performance of an authorized function, e.g., disclosure
of personal information to a member of the public in order to elicit
his/her assistance/cooperation in a criminal, security, or employment
background investigation.
E. To any person or entity in either the public or private sector,
domestic or foreign, where there is reason to believe that a person or
entity could become the target of a particular criminal activity or
conspiracy, to the extent the disclosure of information is deemed by
the FBI to be reasonable and relevant to the protection of life,
health, or property of such target.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING,
RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OR RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
The majority of the records are maintained in an automated data
base. Some records are maintained in hard-copy (paper) format or other
form.
RETRIEVABILITY:
Information typically will be retrieved by the name of the
individual or entity. Telephone numbers and other such serial or
identification numbers are retrievable numerically. Locations targeted
are retrievable by street name.
SAFEGUARDS:
System records are maintained in limited access space in FBI
facilities and offices. Computerized data is password protected. All
FBI personnel are required to pass an extensive background
investigation. The information is accessed only by authorized FBI
personnel or by non-FBI personnel properly authorized to assist in the
conduct of an agency function related to these records.
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
A reference record is purged if the individual is later identified
by a more complete name and re-entered as an intercept record.
Remaining reference records are purged from the system as follows:
Those relating to court ordered electronic surveillance are purged six
months from the date the corresponding authorization for the
surveillance expires. Reference records relating to consensual
intercepts are purged one year from the last intercept date shown on
the record. Until advised to the contrary by the Department, the
courts, or the Congress, all other indices records will be maintained
indefinitely and have been declared permanent by the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) (Job No. NC1-65-82-4, Part E, item 2
(t)).
SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20535.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
Same as Record Access Procedures.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
A request for notification as to whether a record about an
individual exists in the system and/or for access to a record from the
system shall be made in writing with the envelope and the letter
clearly marked ``Privacy Act Request.'' Include in the request your
full name and complete address. The requests must sign the request;
and, to verify it, the signature must be notarized or submitted under
28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty
of perjury as a substitute for notarization. You may submit any other
identifying data you wish to furnish to assist in making a proper
search of the system. Requests for access to information maintained at
FBI Headquarters must be addressed to the Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20535-0001.
Requests for information maintained at FBI field offices, information
technology centers, or other locations must be made separately and
addressed to the specific field office, information technology center,
or other location as listed on the FBI's Internet website, http://
www.fbi.gov, including any future revisions to the website.
Some information may be exempt from notification and/or access
procedures as described in the section titled ``Systems Exempted from
Certain Provisions of the Act.'' An individual who is the subject of
one or more records in this system may be notified of records that are
not exempt from notification and may access those records that are not
exempt from disclosure. A determination on notification and access will
be made at the time a request is received.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
If you desire to contest or amend information maintained in the
system, you should also direct your request to the appropriate FBI
office, stating clearly and concisely what information is being
contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to
the information sought.
Some information may be exempt from contesting record procedures as
described in the section titled ``Systems Exempted from Certain
Provisions of the Act.'' An individual who is the subject of one or
more records in this system may contest and pursue amendment of those
records that are not exempt. A determination whether a record may be
subject to amendment will be made at the time a request is received.
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Information in the indices is derived from electronic surveillance,
public source information, and other FBI record systems.
SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsections
(c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (2) and (3), (e)(4)(G) and(H), (e)(5)
and(8), (f), (g) and (m) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(j). Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c) and (e) and have been published in
the Federal Register.
[FR Doc. 01-15675 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act
of 1993--National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS): Advanced
Embedded Passives Technology
Notice is hereby given that, on May 23, 2001, pursuant to section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences (NCMS): Advanced Embedded Passives Technology has filed
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status.
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, SAS Circuits,
Inc., Littleton, CO has been added as a party to this venture. Also,
HADCO Corporation, Salem, NH and Ormet Corporation, Carlsbad, CA have
been dropped as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group
research project remains open, and National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences (NCMS): Advanced Embedded Passives Technology intends to file
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 7, 1998, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences
(NCMS): Advanced Embedded Passives Technology filed its original
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of
justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section
6(b) of the Act on January 22, 1999 (64 FR 3571).
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 5,
1999. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to
section 6(b) of the Act on March 21, 2000 (65 FR 15176).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-15672 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act
of 1933--The National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 15, 2001, pursuant to section
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993,
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. has filed written notifications
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual
damages under specified circumstances.
Specifically, Automated Precision Inc., Gaithersburg, MD;
Cincinnati Machine Division of Unova, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; CoCreate
Software, Inc., Fort Collins, CO; ComauPico, Inc., Southfield, MI;
Defense Modeling and Simulation Office of the U.S. Department of
Defense, Alexandria, VA; Electronic Data Systems, Inc, Troy, MI;
Holagent Corporation, Gilroy, CA; Hydrogen Technology Applications,
Inc, Clearwater, FL; Johann A. Krause Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; Johnson
Controls, Inc., Plymouth, MI; LFX Technologies LLC, Bloom field Hills,
MI; Manufacturing Resources, Inc., Cleveland, OH; Michigan
Technological University, Houghton, MI; Sulzer Metco Inc., Westbury,
NY; and Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh, MI have been added as
parties to this venture.
Also, Aesop, Inc., Concord, NH; American Induction Heating
Corporation, Fraser, MI; Ascent Logic Corporation, Northville, MI;
Auto-Air Composites, Inc., Lansing, MI; Bencyn West LLC, North
Highlands, CA; Center for Clean Industrial and Treatment Technologies
(CenCITT), Houghton, MI; Corning, Inc., NY; Dow-United Technologies
Composite Products, Inc., Wallingford, CT; Eaton Corporation,
Cleveland, OH; FileNET Corporation, Denver, CO; The Federal Trchnology
Center, North Highlands, CA; Flame Spray Industries, Inc., Port
Wahington, NY; Gensym Corporation, Cambridge, MA; Hewlett-Packard
Company, Kirkland, Quebec, CANADA; IBD, Inc., Winnetka, IL; Indium
Corporation of America, Utica, NY; Information Transport Associates,
Inc., Annapolis, MD; Iowa State University, Ames, IA; Michigan Virtual
Automotive College, Ann Arbor, MI; Midwest Manufacturing Technology
Corporation, St. Louis, MO; Minnesota Technology, Inc., St. Cloud, MN;
MSC Software Corporation, Costa Mesa, CA; MSE Technology Applications,
Inc., Butte, MT; Progressive Tool & Industries Company, Southfield, MI;
Remmele Engineering, Inc., Big Lake, MN; Schafer Corporation,
Albuquerque, NM; Setco Industries, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; Teknowledge
Corporation, Palo Alto, CA; Trellis Software and Controls, Inc.,
Rochester Hills, MI; Trust Data Solutions, San Jose, CA; TRW Integrated
SupplyChain Solutions, Reston, VA; University of New Hampshire, Durham,
NH; and UNOVA-Industrial Automation Systems, Cincinnati, OH have been
dropped as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group
research project remains open, and the National Center for
Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. intends to file additional written
notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 20, 1987, the National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a)
of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 1987 (52 FR
8375).
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 20,
2000. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-15673 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Question. With respect to each of the three databases, please
explain how the timeliness requirement--which sought to ensure that
computer records were as current as possible--interfered with effective
law enforcement. Don't we want our records to be as current as
possible, and don't we want to create incentives for agencies like the
FBI to meet that standard?
Answer. As to each of these databases, the FBI continuously strives
to keep all records as current as feasible. The exemption allows the
FBI the necessary leeway to collect information that may be crucial to
the successful conduct of the FBI's mission.
In the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it
may be impossible to determine in advance what information may still be
of current utility. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or
untimely information may acquire new significance as further
investigation brings new details to light. The restrictions imposed by
paragraph (e)(5) of the Privacy Act would limit the ability of
investigators to exercise their judgment in acquiring and exploiting
potentially significant information (during which information quality
can be validated through links, relationships and other evidence
discovered during investigative efforts.) Assessing the investigative
utility of retention and use of even very old information should thus
be left to the investigative discretion of the FBI.
Additionally, many records in the systems come from other federal,
state, local, joint, foreign, tribal, and international agencies, and
it is administratively impossible for the FBI to guarantee the records
comply with paragraph (e)(5).
Because NCIC functions almost exclusively as a medium for
information exchange, additional quality assurance procedures are in
place. The exemption has not changed NCIC's program requirements for
entry, audit, validation, and hit confirmation of NCIC records that are
applicable to NCIC users. For instance, the NCIC 2000 manual explains
the requirements of ``timely entry'' for NCIC 2000 files and explains
records should be complete and include all information available on a
person or property at the time of entry.
For CRS and NCAVC, in the course of an investigation, retained
information is reviewed at reasonable intervals to determine its
relevance. Analysts, case agents, task force members, supervisors, and
legal counsel may perform reviews as necessary.
Specific to NCAVC's VICAP, there is no federal statute requiring
reports of homicide or other, serial, violent crime to be sent to a
central location or clearinghouse. On their own initiative, several
states have enacted mandatory reporting laws requiring timely
submission of homicide or violent crime data to a central state
authority. Thus, submission of a case in the VICAP database is
voluntary on the part of the law enforcement entity with original
jurisdiction for the offense under investigation. Once submitted, cases
are subject to initial quality control. Reports of additional
investigation, including laboratory results, inclusion or elimination
of suspects, or arrest and conviction of an offender, are forwarded to
VICAP upon the initiative of the investigator. Periodically, VICAP
staff members may contact submitting agencies or investigators and
request updated information.
VICAP has demonstrated that prompt submission of cases produces
valuable investigative results. An example is the Rafael Resendez-
Ramirez investigation. Before Mr. Resendez was identified, and when
only three of his offenses in Texas were linked to him (there would be
a total of six murders allegedly committed in Texas by Mr. Resendez),
the command post in Texas notified VICAP. A murder and sexual assault
committed in Kentucky were located in the VICAP database, and
information concerning them was relayed to the command post. DNA
evidence linked the Texas murders and the Kentucky murder before Mr.
Resendez was identified.
Question. With respect to each of the three databases, please
explain how the other requirements that were lifted by the new rule--
that is; accuracy, relevance, and completeness--interfered with the
legitimate collection of information for law enforcement purposes.
Answer. See preceding response.
Question. The new rule states that the Justice Department is
currently reviewing additional changes to 28 CFR Part 16 for possible
promulgation in future rulemaking. Please describe the changes the
Department is considering.
Answer. The FBI periodically reviews all systems and proposes
amendments to the rule, as necessary, to further important FBI mission
interests, implement clerical improvements, etc. For example, for ease
of reference, the FBI may consider reorganizing the format of the rule,
placing systems in a more logical order and eliminating the frequent
cross-references within the rule.
dna initiative
Question. Last month, the Administration unveiled a proposal to
spend more than $1 billion over five years on forensic DNA programs.
This proposal is overdue, but it is welcome, and it will make a
difference. For two years, I have been urging the Administration and
House Republicans to fully fund existing programs aimed at eliminating
the DNA backlog crisis and, in particular, the inexcusable backlog of
untested rape kits. Across the country, untested critical evidence has
been piling up while rapists and killers remain at large, victims
continue to anguish, and statutes of limitation expire. It is about
time that we made this a national priority.
The President's DNA Initiative includes $5 million a year for post-
conviction DNA tests that can be used by inmates to prove their
innocence. This proposal is also long overdue. Post-conviction DNA
testing has already been used to exonerate more than 120 prisoners
nationwide, including 12 awaiting execution. Last year the Justice
Department cancelled plans to spend $750,000 on a post-conviction DNA
testing initiative, and diverted the money to another program. When I
wrote the Department about this development, I was informed--in a
letter dated May 8, 2002--that ``the Department does not plan to
undertake a national effort to promote and fund post-conviction DNA
testing.'' I am pleased that the Department has changed its position.
The Administration proposes spending $232.6 million in federal
funding for fiscal year 2004, which includes $100.7 million in new
funding. Are these amounts reflected in the President's official budget
request for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The President's DNA Initiative--Advancing Justice Through
DNA Technology--calls for $232.6 million in federal funding for fiscal
year 2004. This includes $100.7 million in new funding. Of the $232.6
million, $177 million is proposed for DNA initiatives to be
administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and $42.1 million
is to be administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In
addition, the $232.6 million includes $13.5 million in training
resources from existing programs within OJP and the Community Oriented
Policing Services that have been identified as complementary and
supportive of the larger DNA Initiative.
The bulk of the $177 million proposed for OJP in the fiscal year
2004 DNA Initiative will be administered by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), and will be used to assist state and local governments
in eliminating their backlogs of crime scene and offender DNA samples,
and to increase state and local forensic laboratory capacity to carry
out DNA analysis. Rape kits and other crime scene evidence that sit for
years in storage and cannot be analyzed because of inadequate resources
or capacity are not solving crimes. The perpetrators may remain at
large, free to commit more crimes, and the victims continue to live in
fear.
By addressing these problems, the DNA backlog reduction and
laboratory capacity programs will directly result in major benefits for
law enforcement and increased security of the public against sexually
violent crimes, homicides, and other offenses. In addition, the Justice
Department expects to commit substantial funds through OJP for other
measures to strengthen the DNA identification system, such as improved
training in the collection and handling of DNA evidence, and DNA
technology research and development.
The following chart displays a detailed funding breakdown of the
fiscal year 2004 DNA Initiative.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Budget
Element of the DNA Initiative Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using DNA To Solve Crimes:
Eliminating Backlogs................................ 92.9
State Casework Backlogs......................... 76.0
State Convicted Offender Backlogs............... 15.0
Funding the Federal Convicted Offender Program.. 1.9
Strengthening Crime Lab Capacity.................... 90.4
Increasing the Analysis Capacity of Public Crime 60.0
Labs...........................................
Funding FBI Forensic Analysis Programs.......... 20.5
Funding the Combined DNA Index System........... 9.9
Stimulating Research and Development................ 24.8
Improving DNA Technology........................ 10.0
FBI Research and Development.................... 9.8
DNA Demonstration Projects...................... 4.5
The National Forensic Science Commission........ 0.5
Training the Criminal Justice Community............. 17.5
Law Enforcement................................. 3.5
Prosecutors, Defense Attorneys, and Judges...... 2.5
Probation & Parole Officers, Corrections 1.0
Personnel......................................
Forensic Scientists............................. 3.0
Medical Personnel............................... 5.0
Victim Service Providers........................ 2.5
Using DNA To Protect the Innocent....................... 5.0
Using DNA To Identify Missing Persons................... 2.0
---------------
Total Funding..................................... 232.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. With respect to the proposal to spend $5 million a year
for post-conviction DNA testing, how did the Department arrive at this
amount? Will it cover the costs of post-conviction DNA testing
nationwide?
Answer. The President's Initiative on DNA evidence, ``Advancing
Justice Through DNA Technology'' calls for the appropriation to the
Department of $5 million annually to be used by the Attorney General to
establish a grant program to help states defray the costs of post-
conviction DNA testing and, therefore, encourage states to adopt
procedures that authorize post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate
cases.
The President's Initiative was developed, in part, from the
recommendations of a task force convened by the Department's National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) at the request of Attorney General Ashcroft
to assess existing DNA analysis delays and develop recommendations for
eliminating those delays. In developing this aspect of the Initiative,
the Department conferred with members of the NIJ task force, as well as
other public and private laboratory directors across the United States,
to ascertain the extent and cost of the post-conviction DNA testing
currently on-going in those states that provide for convicted offenders
to seek such testing.
Based on these discussions, the Department estimates that the cost
of post-conviction DNA analysis in those states that have, or soon will
authorize, a post-conviction DNA testing procedure will not exceed $5
million annually for at least the next five years. This estimate
relates to the actual cost of testing the biological evidence at issue
in those cases, as this program is not intended to pay for the
operational costs of law enforcement personnel in locating any evidence
that an offender requests or that a court orders be tested.
Question. In your remarks announcing the DNA initiative, you said
that you looked forward to working with the ``Chairmen'' of the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees to develop post-conviction DNA testing
legislation. But at your confirmation hearing, you assured me that you
would work on such legislation with ``the Congress''--not just the
Republican Chairmen. Are you willing to honor that commitment today by
working with me to refine and pass the Innocence Protection Act, which
has already garnered overwhelming bipartisan support?
Answer. The Department is committed to working with the Chairmen of
the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, ranking minority members,
and all of the members of the respective authorizing and Appropriations
Committees in developing any legislation necessary to implement all
aspects of the President's DNA Initiative, including the recommendation
that ``Federal law also should provide for post-conviction DNA testing
in appropriate cases,'' and in appropriating the funds necessary to
enable the Attorney General to establish a grant program to ``help
states defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing.''
fbi enforcement of immigration laws
Question. Traditionally, we have not had the FBI enforce our civil
immigration laws because we wanted to encourage maximum cooperation
between illegal immigrants and the officers looking to prevent and
solve crimes and acts of terrorism. Do you disagree with that logic?
Answer. Following the transfer of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service from the Department of Justice, the new
Department of Homeland Security is the primary immigration law
enforcement agency. However, the safety of the American people is the
primary concern for both the Department of Justice and the Department
of Homeland Security.
Pursuant to the Attorney General's longstanding authority under the
immigration laws, last year the Attorney General delegated immigration
law enforcement authority to officers of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS).
Under this delegation, in certain limited circumstances, the FBI may in
the course of its counterterrorism investigations discover that an
alien who poses a potential threat to national security is illegally
present in the United States and find that DHS is unable to take
custody immediately because agents are not available.
The FBI has issued field guidance to implement the delegation of
authority in a manner that ensures that it is used only in appropriate
situations, such as when DHS immigration officials are not available or
when the public safety requires prompt action without DHS.
As of April 15, 2003, in connection with Operation Liberty Shield,
the FBI had interviewed 9,383 individuals and while there were 31
arrests for immigration violations, all arrests were made by BICE
agents. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland
Security have discussed this delegation and will continue to do so.
Question. At the same time that the FBI is now policing immigration
violations, it is depending upon Iraqis in the United States to provide
information of value to the U.S. war effort. Do you have any fear that
this expansion of FBI authority will have a chilling effect on Iraqi
cooperation?
Answer. Because the FBI has been mindful of the constitutional
rights and sensitivities of the Iraqi population in the United States
in the course of our interview program, we do not believe that the
expansion of Department of Justice (DOJ) authority will have a chilling
effect on future efforts to reach out to the Iraqi population.
From the beginning of the hostilities in Iraq, the FBI conducted
approximately 10,000 interviews of Iraqis who might have knowledge of
the Iraqi leadership, military facilities, or Iraqi activities in
support of terrorism. These interviews were strictly voluntary and
conducted within the confines of the Constitution:
--FBI agents were trained and given sensitivity training for
conducting these interviews, and Iraqis being interviewed were
informed of their civil rights.
--High-level FBI officials met with Arab-American civic leaders to
explain the interview process and to enhance communication
between the FBI and the Arab-American community.
The response of the interviewees and the Arab-American community
was overwhelmingly positive, and the DOJ and the FBI would like to
thank community leaders and those interviewed for their cooperation. As
a result of the information derived from the interviews, the FBI
disseminated over 250 reports to assist the military in conducting the
war and locating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The
military consumers of these reports, including CENTCOM, have indicated
that the reports were highly useful.
Question. Considering this committee's obvious interest in both the
FBI and the enforcement of our immigration laws, why did you fail to
notify us of this regulation?
Answer. The Department appreciates the Committee's interest in its
programs. The preceding answer explains the rationale and limited use
of this delegation.
Question. According to the Washington Post, the FBI has drafted
guidelines on how this new authority should be used. Would you provide
a copy of those guidelines to the committee?
Answer. The information follows.
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
02/26/2003.
To: All FBIHQ Divisions, All Field Offices
Attn: Assistant Director, ADIC, SAC, CDC
From: Office of the General Counsel, Investigative Law Unit
Contact: UC Elaine N. Lammert (202) 324-5640
Approved By: Mueller Robert S. III, Gebhardt Bruce J., Wainstein
Kenneth L.
Drafted By: Rowan Patrick
Case ID #: 66F-HQ-A1085154-MISC Serial 85
Title: Delegation of Authority to the FBI to Exercise the Powers
and Duties of Immigration Officers
Enclosure.--Memorandum summarizing the power to arrest under the
Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) and listing a number of INA
violations the FBI may enforce pursuant to the delegation and guidance
contained in this communication.
Synopsis.--This communication advises the receiving offices that
the Attorney General has authorized Agents to exercise the functions of
immigration officers in some circumstances and provides guidance on the
implementation of this authority. This guidance was prepared in
consultation with the Department of Justice, the SAC Advisory Committee
and FBIHQ operational components.
Details.--The Attorney General recently issued an Order delegating
authority to exercise the powers and duties of Immigration Officers to
the FBI. The Order, which is no in effect, grants powers that will be
particularly useful in the FBI's counterterrorism investigations. In
pertinent part, the Order states as follows:
``I authorize the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(``FBI'') and, under this direction Special Agents of the FBI, to
exercise the functions of immigration officers for the purposes of (1)
investigating, determining the location of, and apprehending, any alien
who is in the United States in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, or any other law or regulation
relating to visas or the conditions of visas, admission of aliens or
the conditions of admission, or the maintenance of status as an
immigrant or nonimmigrant or in any category of nonimmigrant; or (2)
enforcing any requirements of such statutes or regulations, including,
but not limited to, nonimmigrant aliens subject to special registration
under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 264.1(f).
This communication is to provide guidance on the implementation of
this Order.
Even prior to the issuance of the Attorney General's Order the FBI
possessed broad authority to investigate criminal violations related to
immigration offenses under both Title 18 and Title 8 of the United
States Code and to arrest those who commit such criminal violations.
There will be no change in the handling or the classification of those
investigations. The Attorney General's Order expands the FBI's
authority to include the investigation and arrest of aliens who have
committed or are committing non-criminal, i.e., civil violations of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) and related statutes.
This guidance addresses the handling of aliens who are non-criminal
violators.
At the outset, it should be understood that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and its successor within the Department of
Homeland Security (referred to hereafter collectively as the ``INS'')
will retain primary jurisdiction over the enforcement of immigration
statutes, including both criminal and civil violations of the INA. the
FBI will not create a separate investigative program to cover
violations of the INA, as these violations will ordinarily be addressed
only in support of existing investigative programs. Individuals
detained or arrested for immigration violations should be turned over
to INS' custody as soon as possible. The Attorney General's Order
provides authority in those circumstances when agents of the INS are
not immediately available to take custody of an alien violator. It also
provides a basis for the apprehension of alien violators encountered in
the course of the FBI's counterterrorism investigations.
In all instances, the Order should be employed in a manner that
strengthens the FBI's ability to address its priorities, rather than
diverting from them. Accordingly, as a general rule, when, during the
course of an investigation, agents encounter an alien who is reasonably
believed to be in violation of the INA, they should exercise their
authority under the Order to detain, question, and, if justified,
arrest the alien if the exercise of these powers will serve the
objectives of the investigation. Conversely, if the exercise of these
powers will harm or undermine the investigation, agents are under no
obligation to do so. Even in the absence of an ongoing investigation,
agents should exercise all appropriate authority under this Order when
necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or destruction of property.
With respect to counterterrorism investigations in particular, and
keeping in mind the FBI's primary mission of preventing acts of
terrorism against American interests, agents should not hesitate to
exercise any or all of their lawful authority under the Order as
appropriate to serve this vital mission, or to refrain from exercising
these powers if, in the judgment of the agent, the FBI's investigative
interests are best served by doing so.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In furtherance of its mission to prevent acts of terrorism, the
FBI has at its disposal the National Security Entry-Exit Registration
System (NSEERS) database, maintained by the INS. This database contains
comprehensive information on temporary visitors to the United States
who are from countries designated by the Attorney General or who meet
pre-existing criteria related to national security. Any NSEERS
registrant who violates his requirements (e.g., by overstaying his
visa, or by failing to verify his address and activities with the INS
after violations are immediately identified by NSEERS, and, like other
violations of the INA, the NSEERS violation may serve as a basic for
arrest when arrest of the violator will advance an investigation and
the FBI's operation priorities. In such cases, the INS should be
notified and consulted as soon as possible. In addition, FBI personnel
supervising counterterrorism investigations should regularly consult
the NSEERS database to determine if aliens who have violated their
requirements have any connection to terrorist suspects already under
FBI investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There may be instances, unrelated to ongoing investigations, in
which the FBI will receive requests for assistance from state or local
law enforcement who have detained aliens for immigration violations.
Such requests should ordinarily be referred to the INS. In those
instances in which the INS is unable to respond to the request, each
ADIC or SAC should exercise his or her discretion, based on resources
and other relevant considerations, as to whether to provide the
requested assistance and, if so, to what extent.
The Order grants FBI agents the authority to exercise the powers to
arrest an alien without warrant set forth in Title 8, U.S. Code,
Section 1357. Under that section, agents may arrest an alien when they
have reason to believe the alien is present in the United States in
violation of an immigration provision of the INA, a standard that can
be met by an admission from the alien, a review of immigration records,
or other reliable information. In many cases, agents will be unable to
make a determination that an alien is in violation without the
assistance of the INS. Each Field Office should consult with their
local INS office to develop a procedure for obtaining such assistance
on a local level. In addition, the INS maintains a Law Enforcement
Support Center that is staffed around the clock and can perform record
checks and provide other assistance.
Each Field Office should also consult with their local INS office
to formulate procedures for the prompt transfer to INS' custody of any
alien arrested by the FBI under the authority of the Attorney General's
Order. Any arrest made under the authority of this Order should be
properly documented in an FD-302.
Attached hereto is a memorandum, prepared by the Office of General
Counsel, summarizing a number of the commonly-encountered INA
violations. In the near future, Headquarters personnel will be working
with their counterparts at the INS and then the Department of Homeland
Security to resolve issues arising from this Order. Training materials
on immigration enforcement will soon be disseminated through the Chief
Division Counsel of each Field Office, and additional training will be
provided in the course of the upcoming counterterrorism training
ordered by the Deputy Attorney General.
national security entry-exit registration system
Question. Under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration
System (NSEERS), male nationals from 25 countries, all but one of which
are overwhelmingly Muslim, must register with the government if they
meet certain criteria. As of one week ago, more than 7,000 men who
presented themselves for registration had been notified of the
government's intention to deport them for various violations of our
immigration laws. Many of those 7,000 are nationals of Pakistan, a U.S.
ally in the war on terror that has informed the United States of its
objections to NSEERS. Earlier this year, the Senate included language
to end the NSEERS program in our omnibus appropriations bill, but
agreed in conference instead to demand a report about the program, from
you, by March 1. That deadline has come and gone, even though this
report will be critical in determining whether we continue to fund
NSEERS, and despite the serious domestic and international
ramifications of this program. When will you submit this report?
Answer. The Department is continuing to assemble the materials
required by Section 112 of Title I of Division B of Public Law 108-7.
The material will be submitted to the Committee.
crime-free rural states program
Question. Congress created the Crime-free Rural States program last
year in the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act. This program authorizes $10 million for rural states
to combat drug abuse and other crimes that increasingly affect rural
states and have put mounting stress on rural law enforcement officers.
Senator Hatch and I have written to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the subcommittee to request full funding for this program. Do you
support our request for full funding?
Answer. In developing the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget, the
Department faced the challenge of managing multiple competing
priorities with limited resources. As a result, no resources were
specifically requested for the Crime-free Rural States program.
However, I do appreciate the problems faced by rural law
enforcement. In fact, the Department currently provides substantial
resources to rural communities. For example, the Office of Justice
Programs' (OJP) fiscal year 2004 President's Budget included $599.724
million for the Justice Assistance Grants program, a formula program
designed to address a wide array of criminal justice issues that would
provide resources directly to our nation's state and local
jurisdictions, including those in rural areas. Other OJP programs
included in the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget that provide
resources to rural communities across the country include: $39.460
million for the Rural Domestic Violence program, which specifically
targets rural communities, $47.683 million for the State and Local Gun
Violence Assistance program, which will continue to support projects in
rural communities; $49.387 million for the Southwest Border Initiative,
which provides assistance to many rural prosecutors in the Southwest
dealing with drug cases; and a total of $25.339 million in programs
specifically requested for Tribal governments and communities, almost
all of which are in rural areas.
oig oversight of dea and fbi
Question. I have repeatedly expressed concern that the DOJ
Inspector General's Office be as independent and strong as possible.
Without accountability, which the Inspector General brings to the
Department, our law enforcers will not be as efficient and as effective
as they can be. For that reason, I sponsored bipartisan legislation,
which was enacted as part of the landmark DOJ Authorization Act last
Congress, that expanded the jurisdiction of the IG by statute to cover
the FBI and DEA. In light of these important additions--and in light of
the growth of the FBI itself as it fulfills its stated mission of
protecting against terrorist attacks--we need to ensure that the IG's
budget grows to meet its new responsibilities. The IG needs to have the
resources required to examine an FBI that is retooling its computer
systems and its entire culture. Unfortunately, however, I note that the
President's budget request ``flat lines'' the IG's office even though
the Republican-controlled Congress did not grant the President's entire
requested increase for the IG in last year's Omnibus Appropriations
bill. Please explain why the Administration is not seeking to provide
the IG with the new resources it will need to oversee the FBI's efforts
to modernize itself.
Answer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) received
$5,000,000 and 63 positions in fiscal year 2002 to expand the Inspector
General's authorities in investigating employee misconduct within the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement
Administration, this allowed for an 18 percent increase in staff. In
fiscal year 2003, the OIG received an additional $2.0 million and 17
positions, in part to address the FBI's growth in personnel and
counterterrorism programs. These funds, coupled with the recent
supplemental of $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2003/2004, provide
sufficient funding for the OIG through fiscal year 2004.
implementation of usa patriot act and other issues related to war on
terrorism
Question. In a letter dated April 1, 2003, the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the House Judiciary Committee requested extensive information
from the Justice Department regarding the Department's implementation
of the USA PATRIOT Act and other issues related to the war on
terrorism. Please provide your responses to the 38 questions posed in
that letter, a copy of which is attached. (Attachment 1)
Answer. In response to your letter of September 4, 2003, co-signed
by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch, the Department provided a
copy of the Department's May 13, 2003, response to the April 1, 2003,
letter from the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee on
September 9, 2003. As noted in our transmittal letter, while we made
every effort to answer each question thoroughly and in an unclassified
format, four of the questions required the submission of classified
information. The answer to a portion of question 16(a), and questions
30 and 37 are classified and were delivered to the Senate Security
Office for the Senate Judiciary Committee under separate cover. In
accordance with longstanding Executive branch practices on the sharing
of operational intelligence information with the Congress, the
classified answers to question 1(c), and a further portion of question
16(a), were delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
juvenile accountability incentive block grant program
Question. Mr. Attorney General, even in a time of great domestic
instability, we cannot forget about the important law enforcement
functions of the DOJ. Among these responsibilities is juvenile
delinquency prevention and enforcement. However, the fiscal year 2004
Department of Justice budget proposal eliminates the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program (JAIBG) a program that was
funded at $140 million last year, and more than $200 million two years
ago. The budget justification cites that the program was found
``ineffective'' by OMB.
However, when we reauthorized the Department of Justice last fall,
we also reauthorized the JAIBG program at $350 million per year. More
importantly, we dramatically improved the program. The program purpose
areas have been significantly expanded to provide additional services
and treatment for troubled youth, including graduated sanctions,
substance abuse and mental health counseling, restitution, community
service, and supervised probation.
Nonetheless, JAIBG has been zeroed out. The new and improved JAIBG
has not even been given a chance by this Administration--the same
Administration that reauthorized JAIBG just last year. I am aware that
the Justice budget retains some funding for juvenile justice programs.
However, a new $43 million ``Juvenile Delinquency Block Grant Program''
still represents almost a $100 million cut from last year's JAIBG
program--a program authorized at $350 million. Moreover, Title V
juvenile crime prevention programs--cut in half in the fiscal year 2003
appropriation B are also under-funded and overly earmarked in this
year's budget proposal.
Why are these programs being cut at a time when the latest
statistics suggest an up tick in juvenile crime after a steady decrease
throughout the nineties? Now is not the time to give up juvenile
justice programs.
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request for
juvenile justice delinquency and prevention programs focuses on those
programs that work and provide states and local governments maximum
flexibility. These programs include the $93.768 million Part B Formula
Grants, the new $42.881 million Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention
Block Grant Program created by the 21st Century Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act, and the $82.255 million Title V Incentive Grants
for Local Delinquency Prevention Program, which represents an increase
of $36.1 million above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The request
includes funding for two major activities: $69.755 million for Title V
Delinquency Prevention Program Incentive Grants; and $12.5 million for
the Tribal Youth Program, which awards grants directly to American
Indian and Alaska Native communities for prevention, control, and
juvenile justice system improvement. This is essentially the same level
as requested in fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003.
The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) was
reauthorized under the 21st Century Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act, which was signed into law on November 2, 2002.
Funding for the JABG, formerly the Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant (JAIBG) Program, was not requested because in its recent
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluation, OMB ranked JAIBG as
``ineffective.'' As OMB indicated in the evaluation, program managers
have little information on the activities and outcomes of JABG, and
cannot verify the need for or the results of this program.
According to the initial statutory guidance for JABG, the ultimate
purpose of the block grants is to make juvenile offenders more
accountable for their actions and to make the justice system more
accountable for juveniles' safety. These stated goals make it difficult
for managers to develop clear, outcome-based performance measures.
Other than anecdotal evidence, the program has not demonstrated any
measurable impact on either juvenile crime or the juvenile justice
system to date.
There are purpose areas in the Juvenile Delinquency Block Grant
program that overlap with JABG purpose areas. In addition, funds under
the proposed $599.724 million Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) program
can be used by state and local governments to address the areas funded
through JABG. Thus, resources will still be available to address
juvenile offender accountability.
imported explosives
Question. Federal explosives regulations require domestically
manufactured explosives to include identifying information such as
manufacturer, location, date, and shift of manufacture. This
information is vital to criminal investigations when law enforcement
authorities recover explosives. ATF can trace the purchase of
explosives in much the same way that it traces firearms. Yet, imported
explosives are not required to have any identification information.
How many pounds of unmarked imported explosives enter the country--
say annually? I understand that millions of pounds of these unmarked
explosives enter this country each year. If this is the case, should we
not take immediate legislative action to close this loophole? Do you
pledge to work with me on this?
Answer. Currently there are no regulations requiring the marking of
explosive materials imported into the United States. Federal
regulations at 27 CFR part 555, Commerce in Explosives, administered by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), require
that licensed domestic manufacturers of explosive materials legibly
identify all explosive materials manufactured for sale or distribution
by placing the identity of the manufacturer and the location, date, and
shift of manufacture on each cartridge, bag, or other immediate
container. ATF; the Institute of Explosives Makers (IME); and the
International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators (IABTI)
recognized that these regulations do not extend similar requirements on
importers of explosive materials. ATF; the IME; and the IABTI
recognized that this loophole creates a major obstacle for tracing
foreign manufactured recovered explosives, as well as results in an
economic disadvantage by placing the marking requirement only on
domestic producers. To that end, both the IME and IABTI petitioned ATF
to pursue rulemaking to close this loophole. On October 16, 2002, ATF
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to require the marking of all
explosive materials imported into the United States. The notice comment
period ended January 14, 2003 and is in the final stages of review.
There is no federal requirement for reporting the amount of
explosives materials imported into the United States. ATF is working
with the U.S. Customs Service to obtain a reliable figure. However,
information from the IME indicates that there are approximately 6
billion pounds of explosive materials used in the United States
annually. Of that amount, approximately 2 million pounds of boosters (a
high explosive) are imported into the United States annually.
Additionally, industry sources have advised ATF that approximately 165
million pounds of Chinese fireworks enter the United States annually.
fisa (foreign intelligence surveillance act)
Question. Press reports indicate that for the first time since FISA
became law, surveillance requests under FISA outnumbered all of those
under domestic law--the Washington Post reported last week that you
personally signed more than 170 ``emergency foreign intelligence
warrants''--this is three times the number authorized in the preceding
23 years.
Mr. Attorney General, can you comment on whether that is true? In
addition, given the much greater powers granted to the government under
FISA, can you tell us whether we should be disturbed by this trend.
After all, the secrecy that surrounds FISA provides very little
accountability and oversight. Are we in danger of living in a country
where secret wiretaps and extended surveillance are the norm?
Answer. While I cannot speak to the accuracy of press reports, as I
have said previously, in 2002, using Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) tools, we targeted more than 1,000 international terrorists,
spies and foreign powers who threaten our country's security. We
requested 170 emergency FISAs. This is more than three times the total
number of emergency FISAs obtained in the 23 years prior to September
11.
This is a reflection, in part, of the imminent need to protect the
United States from potential acts of terrorism or other grave hostile
acts from foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. I would disagree
that the FISA provides little accountability and oversight. Every
application that is presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (the Court) goes through a rigorous review on many levels. Before
presenting an application to the Court, the Attorney General must
approve the application based upon his finding that the application
satisfies the criteria and requirements for such applications set forth
in the FISA, including the requirement that the target of the
surveillance or search is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power. In addition, the application is certified by an appropriately
designated official. Among other things, the official certifies that a
significant purpose of the surveillance or search is to obtain foreign
intelligence information. Finally, the application is presented to the
Court for its independent judicial review. In the event that an
application is denied by the Court, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review has jurisdiction to review such a case.
In addition, Congress plays an important role in oversight of the
FISA process. The Attorney General submits, on a semi-annual basis,
detailed reports concerning activities conducted pursuant to the FISA
to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and both the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees.
In all cases, strict adherence to the Constitution, and observation
of the responsibility of this government to safeguard the rights of all
individuals regarding the Constitution, is the highest priority of the
Department of Justice. Any surveillance or search conducted pursuant to
the FISA is done in strict accordance with the law, and is conducted in
ways which I believe fully respect the Constitution.
antitrust--telecom
Question. A priority of the Antitrust Subcommittee has been
promoting competition in the local and long distance phone markets. For
many years, the Antitrust Division has had a task force--the
Telecommunications and Media Section--devoted to monitoring competition
in the telecom industry. Its principal responsibility has been to
determine whether the local telephone market is open to competition
when the incumbent Bell company applies for permission to provide long
distance service. As you know, this is known as the Section 271
process. The 271 process has been conducted on a state-by-state basis
and is now nearly complete.
With this process winding up, some observers wonder if the
Telecommunications and Media Section is as active as it should be, and
whether the Antitrust Division will continue to aggressively police
anti-competitive practices in local phone markets. We must ensure that
the markets deemed open to competition remain open, rather than
backsliding into a monopoly environment.
What do you see as the role of the Antitrust Division in ensuring
competitive local phone markets in the future? Would you favor giving,
by statute, the Telecommunications and Media Section clearly
established periodic responsibilities to examine local phone
competition?
Answer. The Antitrust Division has played an important role in
protecting competition in the telecommunications industry for decades
and fully intends to continue doing so through vigorous antitrust
enforcement. Following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
the Division has provided guidance to the FCC and the state regulatory
agencies on the Section 271 process and has provided the FCC with an
evaluation of each Section 271 application. Before that, the Division
spent 14 years enforcing the 1982 antitrust consent decree that settled
the enforcement action the Division brought against AT&T in 1974. Along
with these responsibilities, the Division aggressively investigates
proposed mergers and potentially anticompetitive conduct in a wide
variety of communications and media markets.
With the Section 271 initial application process approaching
completion, the Division intends to continue monitoring activities in
the telecommunications industry across the country. In states where the
Bell Operating Company has been granted Section 271 authority, the
Division will continue to play its traditional roles of enforcing the
antitrust laws against Sherman Act violations and anticompetitive
mergers, as well as engaging in competition advocacy through
participation in FCC and state regulatory proceedings where we can
provide competitive analysis that would assist these agencies in
promoting and maintaining the development of local competition.
The FCC will continue to have authority to enforce compliance with
the specific market-opening provisions of the 1996 Act. The antitrust
laws give the Antitrust Division sufficient authority to perform its
broader role in protecting competition in this important marketplace,
and the 1996 Act contains a savings clause that explicitly preserves
the Division's antitrust enforcement authority in this area. Given our
enforcement history and accumulated experience in telecommunications
markets, we plan to remain fully engaged in monitoring these markets
for possible antitrust violations. Additional authority is not needed
in order for us to perform this role.
sleeper cells
Question. What is the current status of the investigation to root
out more terrorist sleeper cells in this country? Are we on the right
track or do we have a long way to go?
Answer. With the cooperation of the Joint Terrorism Task Force
Program, the FBI successfully identified cells in Buffalo, Detroit, and
Portland, Oregon. These investigations have resulted in convictions of
subjects charged with offenses ranging from providing material support
to terrorist organizations to misuse of identification documents.
The FBI is currently working jointly with all members of the
Intelligence Community to identify additional terrorist sleeper cells
within the United States. Although we have identified new cells within
the United States, and we are on the right track, the war on terrorism
is ongoing.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. The next hearing will be on Tuesday, April
8, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Building at 124. The subcommittee
will be hearing testimony of SEC Chairman William Donaldson.
This is going to be in the Senate Office Building--we are going
to hold it over in the Capitol.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Tuesday, April 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
April 8.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg and Hollings.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DONALDSON, CHAIRMAN
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. The committee will come to order. It is
great to have the Chairman of the SEC here today, William
Donaldson.
First, I want to thank you on behalf of the Congress and
the American people for being willing to come out of the
private sector, with your tremendous experience and expertise,
and take over this job. I consider it to be one of the most
significant jobs we have in the Federal Government because it
is the job which makes capital markets vibrant and reliable,
and capital markets which are transparent and properly
regulated are critical to the well-being of the American
economy.
International confidence in our markets is essential to the
survival of our Nation and our free market system, so having
your leadership at the SEC is crucial, and we are excited you
are there.
Senator, did you have any opening comments?
Senator Hollings. I am equally excited and grateful that he
would take this assignment. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. We would be happy to hear any thoughts you
have to add. You can summarize your statement or read it,
however you wish to proceed.
OPENING REMARKS
Mr. Donaldson. Thank you for your comments, Senator. I am
honored to be here and to be in the position I'm in. Let me
just make a couple of brief comments, and then we can do
whatever you would like in terms of carrying on from there.
I appreciate the chance to speak. Our request is for $841.5
million. That's the largest amount that's ever been requested
for the SEC, and it comes on the heels of last year's
appropriation, which was the largest single year percentage
increase ever provided the Commission. I want to thank you and
the subcommittee for the tremendous support and leadership
you've shown in ensuring that the Commission receives the
resources that are necessary to fulfill our mission.
Thanks to your efforts, the Commission has been
appropriated $716.4 million to fund its operations this fiscal
year as part of the omnibus appropriation. These funds will
enable us to meet the remaining deadline for the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, hire over 800 new staff and advance the initial startup
funds to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, improve
our training efforts, and address our most pressing information
technology needs.
Ensuring that our new resources are used to promote the
effectiveness and support the modern mission of the SEC, rather
than simply increasing our numbers, is one of my most important
responsibilities as Chairman. During the next several weeks and
months I intend to get more deeply into each program area to
verify personally that this is the best, most effective and
efficient use of our new staffing. I would therefore like to
reserve my option to make changes. I have been at the
Commission I think a total of almost 8 weeks now, and my staff
and I hope to (a) examine our budgets carefully and (b) work
closely with the subcommittee as we finalize our resource
allocations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As I said at the beginning, I'm honored to be Chairman of
the SEC. I think it is the most important time in the history
of the country to have this job, and I will be delighted to
answer any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Donaldson
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings, and Members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of
the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the President's
fiscal 2004 budget request. The fiscal 2004 budget request of $841.5
million is the largest amount ever requested for the SEC and comes on
the heels of last year's appropriation, which was the largest single-
year percentage increase ever provided to the Commission.
At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for the tremendous support and leadership you have shown in ensuring
that the Commission receives the resources and staff necessary to
fulfill its mission. Your backing, along with the strong support of our
authorizing committees, demonstrates convincingly that the Congress is
dedicated to ensuring the financial integrity and vitality of our
markets. While recent events have shaken investor confidence in the
financial reporting by public companies and the integrity of our
securities markets, your support of the SEC in both fiscal 2003 and
2004, and the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley Act, will help reinforce the
foundations of our markets and demonstrate their resiliency.
Although I have been at the Commission only since February 18th, I
look forward to continuing and building on the strong and cooperative
relationship that our Agency has developed with you in the past as we
work together on the SEC's resource needs to implement the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act and fulfill all of our statutory duties. This is a critical
time for the agency and the way we address the challenges before us
will determine not only where we go tomorrow, but for years to come.
In many ways, it may be time for the SEC to go through a
transition--much like the transition that the U.S. military has
experienced in recent years--and evolve into a much more efficient
force, becoming quicker, more agile, and more pro-active. I am now
reviewing with senior staff the Agency's operations and resource needs
to determine appropriate changes to address both our internal and
external needs. My hope is that the SEC can develop a new approach to
our mission, as the military has done, so that we can play offense more
often, be more pro-active, and anticipate the problems we may face.
fiscal 2003
Although this hearing is for the Commission's 2004 appropriations
request, I believe it is necessary to put this request in the context
of our fiscal 2003 funding level. Thanks to your efforts, the
Commission was appropriated $716.4 million to fund its operations this
year as part of the recent omnibus appropriation. These funds will
enable us to meet the remaining fast-approaching deadlines of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, hire over 800 new staff, advance initial start-up
funds to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, improve our
training efforts, and address our most pressing information technology
needs. We will continue each of these activities in fiscal 2004 and for
that reason I would like to discuss them now.
Additional Staff
The new staff provided in fiscal 2003 will focus equally on the
complex issues that we currently face and on the fundamentals upon
which the Commission was built: full disclosure, fairness,
transparency, and investor protection. Investor confidence is
predicated on ``minding our knitting'' in these core areas. I believe
that any budget increases we receive must be targeted to the programs
and activities that will have the largest impact on our mission. In
this regard, the budget that was prepared prior to my arrival calls for
the following staffing increases in our major program areas:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention and Suppression of Fraud........................ 188
Full Disclosure............................................ 204
Investment Management Regulation........................... 178
Regulation of Securities Markets........................... 201
Legal and Economic Services................................ 22
Program Direction.......................................... 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My initial review of these numbers suggests that overall this level
of increase is warranted. However, during the next several weeks and
months I intend to delve more deeply into each program area to verify
personally that this is the best and most effective and efficient use
of our new staffing. I would therefore like to reserve my option to
make changes.
As discussed below, we will hire aggressively but thoughtfully, not
just to increase head-count. As a result, these hiring targets may only
be met over a longer period of time, but they will be met with people
that we are sure can perform the vital tasks that we assign to them.
And we are committed to train and integrate new staff as we bring them
on. We are grateful that legislation has been introduced in both the
House and Senate to help the Commission expedite and streamline the
hiring process so that we can bring on additional, mission-critical
securities industry accountants, compliance examiners and economists as
quickly as possible to get on with the business of protecting America's
investors.\1\ The Commission strongly supports this legislation and
hopes that it will be adopted at the soonest possible time and signed
into law by the President. Without this expedited hiring authority, the
Commission will not be able to hire the additional staff it needs--and
which the Sarbanes/Oxley Act contemplates--in any responsive time
frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See H.R. 658/S. 496, ``The Accountant, Compliance, and
Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, over half of all U.S. households are invested in our capital
markets. Twenty years ago, that rate was less than 20 percent. Just to
use one example: mutual fund investments today exceed by more than $2
trillion the amount on deposit at commercial banks and are approaching
the approximately $7 trillion in total financial assets in the
commercial banking system. The SEC has only 354 examiners to oversee
these mutual funds and investment advisers. In addition, while there
are over 7,800 registered broker-dealers--with more than 88,200 broker-
dealer branch offices--in the United States, the SEC's broker-dealer
examination program has only 218 staff to conduct inspections of these
institutions. These facts, along with the accounting scandals that have
plagued us, reinforce what we all know: our markets have changed, and
grown, dramatically, investor confidence has been shaken, and the SEC
must act decisively to deal with these challenges.
Equally important, I believe that the efficient functioning of the
SEC is as much a part of investor protection as ushering in new rules
and regulations. I have presided over similar management challenges
while in the private sector and seen first hand what it takes to grow
rapidly and responsibly and improve performance. The organizational and
cultural changes that accompany the opportunity you have provided me
are significant and require regular attention. Toward this end, the
yardstick for measuring our success will be based both on the number
and quality of immediate program improvements and on meeting the
agency's long-term goals of investor protection and market strength.
Two operational areas that play a significant role in this regard are
staff training and management accountability.
Training and Management
New staff and the need for regular training go hand-in-hand. For
this reason, the Commission will increase significantly its emphasis on
frequent, in-depth staff training. Given the challenges we face, we
need to ensure that staff continue to have the tools and skills
necessary to fulfill their duties effectively. We cannot afford to have
our most skilled employees leave the agency or be underutilized. Pay
parity and the downturn in the economy have helped attract top talent,
but there is more that we can do.
Management accountability is also central to our ability to perform
our duties. I intend to enhance the Commission's operations by
establishing a system to better train, evaluate, develop, and mentor
managers and supervisors. This effort is consistent with the goals of
the President's management agenda and is the right thing to do. We
cannot expect SEC staff to successfully fulfill their duties if they do
not have supervisors with the skills and tools to lead them. We must
set expectations and reward our managers and staff accordingly.
Information Technology
The Commission's operational challenges also extend to our
information technology program. Prior to enactment of our fiscal 2003
appropriation, our Office of Information Technology had been structured
to maintain our existing information technology systems, undertake a
few smaller projects each year, and complete only one large-scale
initiative at a time. We have accomplished this level of activity
primarily by developing a robust information technology capital
planning program and relying heavily on contractors and outsourcing.
This approach has been essential given past resource constraints, but
it has left us with badly outdated IT capabilities. We must now be
critically introspective, bring in broad IT expertise to evaluate our
needs and further increase the involvement of our agency's divisions
and offices in our information technology decisions. To meet our needs,
program staff must work side-by-side with a reinforced information
technology staff, and we must increase the number of information
technology program managers we have available to assist the program
offices in developing major applications to improve our effectiveness.
While these hiring and cultural changes may not appear revolutionary,
they are nonetheless significant and multi-year in nature, especially
when viewed against our current inventory of major information
technology needs.
The fiscal 2003 funding level allows the SEC to undertake three new
major, multi-year information technology projects. The first one
addresses the Commission's need to move away from paper documents. It
is the development of a robust document management and imaging system
that will make it easier for our attorneys, examiners, and others to
cull through the tremendous volumes of information that they review and
file as part of their investigative, inspection, and enforcement
activities. This system will provide agency-wide electronic capture,
search, and retrieval of all investigative and examination materials
and will be designed to meet the demands of our document-intensive
litigation program, and to assist our examination staff in analyzing
the content of documents more effectively.
As an aside, one of the first things I noticed when I arrived at
the Commission's headquarters and walked around was the extent to which
the SEC is physically drowning in paper files. We need to make it
easier for staff to do their jobs and to share information with each
other. Document management and imaging are key components of this and,
while it will be a multi-year effort, it is long overdue.
The second project holds equal potential to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Commission: a comprehensive change in our
filing and disclosure processes, especially regarding financial
reporting. The effort to improve the filing and transparency of public
company disclosures is expected to lead to significant business process
changes that will result in the elimination of confusing forms, the
collection of uniform data from filers, and internal operations
improvements that will allow staff to conduct more rigorous financial,
industry-specific, and comparative analyses. Although this project will
be carried out by issuers, their accountants and their other advisors,
under the leadership of the SEC, the principal beneficiaries of this
initiative ultimately will be the nation's investors, who will have
more understandable and reliable financial information upon which to
base their investment decisions. This will result in a fundamental
improvement in the transparency and comparability of firms' financial
statements, which should significantly increase investor confidence.
When the agency's electronic filing system (EDGAR) was originally
created, it did a terrific job of converting paper disclosures and
filings into electronic documents and making more information available
to the public. We now need to take the next step. As part of a
comprehensive review of our business processes, we need to change how
we work and alter EDGAR accordingly. We need to revisit what
information staff must have readily available to conduct more intensive
and robust disclosure reviews. For instance, while we receive and
archive the EDGAR data, we cannot immediately analyze them. Instead, we
depend on outside vendors to transfer the numbers in the text of the
filings to machine-readable form that we can then analyze. We are in
the process of designing tags for EDGAR filings that would allow
anybody to extract machine-readable data from them. These initiatives
will allow us to conduct analyses and monitor trends in real-time.
Our third major information technology requirement is to enhance
our disaster recovery program. The SEC learned first-hand from the
events of 9/11 and the experiences of its Northeast Regional Office, in
New York, of the importance of keeping its data even more secure than
it already is. In addition, we need to have the capacity to store and
move large amounts of data from one regional or district office to
another without first going through Washington. We need to move to a
true ``point to point'' information technology system that allows us to
mitigate the loss of data and to recover quickly in the event that we
need to implement our continuity of operations plan. When this project
is complete, the agency's critical files and information systems will
be backed up daily and in multiple locations.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Since enactment of the landmark Sarbanes-Oxley Act last summer, the
Commission has worked vigilantly to meet the Act's timeline and
mandates. Within 30 days of the Act's signing, we adopted rules
requiring CEOs and CFOs to certify their financial statements and
accelerating insider transaction reporting to two days.
This past January was the busiest month of rulemaking in the
history of the SEC. We adopted nine other Sarbanes-Oxley mandated rules
relating to: Pro-forma financial information, codes of ethics for
senior executives, financial experts on audit committees, trading
during pension fund blackout periods, disclosure of material off-
balance sheet transactions, retention of audit records, independence
standards for public company auditors, standards of conduct for
corporate attorneys, and the application of certain Sarbanes-Oxley
certification and disclosure requirements to registered investment
companies.
In addition, we sent four separate studies to Congress related to:
Penalties and disgorgements in our enforcement cases, securities
professionals who have ``aided and abetted'' federal securities law
violations, commission enforcement actions involving reporting
violations and restatements, and the role and function of credit rating
agencies.
We met these deadlines without sacrificing our other work or
obligations--including our robust enforcement program and numerous
regulatory initiatives unrelated to Sarbanes-Oxley. For example, in
January we also adopted rules regarding proxy voting by investment
companies and investment advisers, and in February we adopted rules
regarding analyst certification of research reports. And we're hard at
work on other rules and studies, including rules related to: Improper
influence on auditors, listing standards related to audit committees,
governance of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, investment
adviser and investment company compliance policies, public company
internal control reports, critical accounting policies, and expanded
current reporting.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Selection of a new chairman
The Commission recently announced that it adopted a plan to select
a Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board established
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.\2\ The plan calls for the
Chairman, the Commissioners, and the staff to reach out and solicit
input from a variety of sources, including key members of Congress,
investor advocates, academics, and members of the business community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Statement of the Commission Regarding Selection Process
for Chairperson of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB)'' March 4, 2003, http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-28.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in my confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking
Committee, the selection of a Chairperson for the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board is my number one priority, and I am pleased
that the Commission has been able to build upon the recommendations of
the General Accounting Office and quickly devise a thorough and
expeditious process to identify and vet potential candidates.
The SEC staff will incorporate new suggestions, update the list of
qualified candidates and circulate it to the members of the Commission.
The Chairman and the Commissioners will narrow that list based on the
criteria in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, additional criteria that
the Commission finds desirable, but not mandatory, and the individual's
willingness to serve.
Each candidate on the narrowed list will undergo a preliminary
vetting process. Upon completion, each member of the Commission will
interview the leading candidates and a thorough background review will
be completed. Following this review and consultation with the Chairman
of the Federal Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury, as required, the
Commission will vote to approve the appointment of a Chairperson.
The Commission will be looking for an individual who has experience
running a dynamic and innovative organization; is well recognized by
those participating in the financial markets and possesses a keen
understanding of those markets; is independent from any particular
constituency; has experience that demonstrates an understanding of the
role of auditors in the Commission's financial accounting and
disclosure system; has no known impediments or controversies that might
impair his or her ability to lead, or the public's ability to rely on
the individual to lead; and is willing and able to serve a five-year
term.
In addition, we are seeking a person who has the ability to
consider impartially ideas, information, and data from all sources, to
seek additional input whenever it appears necessary, and to make timely
decisions, as well as the ability to absorb complex information,
analyze it objectively, and make rational decisions. Of course, we want
someone who has the ability to communicate effectively, has a
demonstrated commitment to public service and to the PCAOB's mission,
as well as an awareness of the financial reporting and auditing
environment. The individual we choose should have a demonstrated
ability to create a collegial working environment and instill public
trust.
My hope and expectation is that the Commission will move
expeditiously and select a new chairman for the PCAOB as quickly as the
process allows.
Funding advance
The fiscal 2003 budget provides the resources necessary for the
Commission to advance start-up funds to the Board. The Commission
initially advanced $1.9 million to the Board on January 15, 2003. On
March 28, the Commission approved a more substantial second advance of
$13.5 million that will fund the Board's operations through May and
allow them to begin the development of state-of-the-art information
systems to be used in their registration, billing and collection, and
professional oversight programs. The Board has stated its intention to
repay all of these funds to the Commission by the end the current
fiscal year.
Commission Oversight
The Commission has significant responsibilities related to the
oversight of the Board, including approving the Board's budget and
rules and adjudicating appeals from the Board's decisions on
registration, inspection, and disciplinary matters. We have developed
close communications and a good working relationship. For example, the
Board and the Commission recently participated in a roundtable on
issues related the Board's registration and oversight of foreign
accounting firms.
Utilization of Commission Resources
We have tremendous needs for the new resources made available in
2003 and have plans in place to meet these needs. However, I want to be
sure--and I am committed to making sure--that every penny of that new
money is spent wisely. I am determined that we take an aggressive but
thoughtful approach to resource allocation. We will bring on the people
we need to help us fulfill our mission, and not simply increase our
head-count. I view this allocation of resources and renewed commitment
to the SEC's needs as a multi-year effort to ensure that we make long-
lasting and substantial improvements in the SEC's programs that will
restore confidence and benefit our nation's investors.
fiscal 2004
The President's request for $841.5 million in fiscal 2004
recognizes that the Commission's needs are growing and ongoing. As I
stated earlier, this request is the largest amount the Commission has
ever received and will allow us to continue all of the efforts that we
are undertaking in fiscal 2003. In particular, it will allow us to
focus further on financial frauds, review of public company filings,
our new risk-based examination program, and the ongoing requirements of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Enforcement Activities
The Commission has played, and will continue to play, a vital role
in protecting our markets from fraud, manipulation and other practices
that continually threaten to undermine their integrity. To meet the
challenges facing us--including the unprecedented number of significant
financial frauds and accounting failures, new securities products,
technologies, and globalization--the Commission's enforcement program
will continue to add personnel, including investigative attorneys,
accountants, and market surveillance specialists.
The Commission has responded swiftly to the recent rash of
accounting failures. In fiscal 2002, approximately 27 percent of all
filed enforcement actions involved financial disclosure and issuer
reporting violations. Financial reporting and accounting cases remain
our number one enforcement priority, and numerous financial fraud
investigations are currently underway. These types of investigations
require a significant commitment of staff resources because they are
fact- and document-intensive and include reviews of the conduct of a
variety of individuals and entities. The Commission's enforcement
program will continue to need additional attorneys and accountants to
assist in these complex financial fraud investigations.
As the Commission seeks to aggressively investigate and punish
corporate fraud, an increasing number of defendants are choosing to
litigate. Even many cases that are ultimately settled are the subject
of protracted litigation prior to settlement. Commission litigators are
now actively involved in nearly one-half of recently filed cases. In
addition, our litigation and investigative staff are increasingly
involved in emergency court actions in an attempt to secure investor
funds before they are lost forever and to alert the investing public to
false and misleading disclosures being made by issuers. It is critical
that the Commission maintain a strong litigation capability because it
is the credible threat of litigation that allows us to pursue
wrongdoers effectively and win our cases or settle them on favorable
terms.
Additionally, the growing internationalization of the securities
industry and the securities markets has added new challenges for the
Commission in combating securities fraud. An increasing number of the
SEC's enforcement cases have substantial international dimensions that
make it more important for the Commission to work closely with its
international counterparts in enforcement and inspection activities.
Our staff devotes much time and resources to tracking down assets that
have been sent abroad.
And finally, the Commission's enforcement staff works closely with
U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Department of Justice to obtain
criminal sanctions as appropriate. This association was recently
institutionalized by President Bush when he created Corporate Fraud
Task Force, of which the Commission is a member and the Department of
Justice heads. We also will continue to detail enforcement staff, in
appropriate situations, to U.S. Attorneys' Offices around the country
to support criminal prosecution of securities fraud.
Market Structure Issues
The rules governing trading within equity markets and the
relationship among competing equity markets is another area that the
Commission will focus on this year. Aware that such issues were coming
to a head, the Commission organized two full days of market structure
hearings in October and November 2002. Participants at the hearings
included senior staff members of the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq,
American Stock Exchange, and Chicago Stock Exchange; market makers,
specialists, Electronic Communication Networks, and agency brokers;
buy-side traders; representatives of individual investors; and
respected academics. In the remainder of this fiscal year, the
Commission will devote significant resources to the development,
proposal, adoption, and enforcement of the policy actions that will be
necessary in this area.
Review of Filings of Public Companies
The Division of Corporation Finance has been enhancing its
selective review program to target issuers whose review would most
protect investors--large companies, companies in critical sectors,
companies that present particular perceived financial or disclosure
risks. This targeted approach is consistent with the directives
contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The review of the Fortune 500
companies undertaken last year is an example of this approach. As
review resources and technological enhancements that will assist in the
assessment of risk are added to the Division, the review process will
become more robust. While the review process cannot eliminate or
identify all financial fraud or identify those who are determined to
commit fraud, the review process will better fulfill its objectives of
improving disclosure and deterring fraud.
The review process is increasingly focusing on financial reporting
and financial disclosure because these are the areas where defective
disclosure puts investors at most risk. To permit this focus,
recruiting and hiring of review staff will emphasize accountants and
those who are able to perform financial reviews.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also requires review of each reporting
company at least once every three years. We are in the process of
developing review processes that will permit us to meet that goal. Here
too, the additional resources that we are adding to the Division are an
essential element and will allow us to satisfy that mandate over a
multi-year period. We will also use those resources to meet that review
requirement in an efficient and effective way, and we intend to do so
in a manner that does not undercut our investor protection objective.
Risk-Based Examinations
With the additional staffing provided in fiscal 2003, the
Commission's examination and inspection staff will be able to implement
our new enhanced risk-based inspection program. For investment advisers
and mutual funds, this enhanced program will allow examiners to
recognize the different levels of risk inherent in the operations,
management, and compliance processes of investment advisers and funds.
In particular, those registrants that have relatively higher risk
profiles will be examined every two years, while all remaining firms
will be examined no less frequently than every four years. New firms
will be inspected within the first year of their operation. These more
frequent inspections are a substantial improvement over the five-year
inspection cycle used to schedule inspections prior to fiscal 2003. For
broker-dealers, the new staffing levels will allow us to increase
substantially our oversight of the risk management and internal
controls of the largest broker-dealers that have the most customer
accounts, and also to increase the small number of broker-dealer branch
office inspections that we are currently able to conduct.
Other Sarbanes-Oxley Act Requirements
While the Commission has made tremendous progress in implementing
many of the critical components of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and has met
each of its statutory deadlines, important initiatives and additional
rulemaking pursuant to this historic legislation will continue to be a
top priority for the SEC. In addition to the numerous substantive rules
already adopted, a number of Commission actions are still mandated by
deadlines set within the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These forthcoming SEC
actions include: the ratification of key rules and procedures for the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; the adoption of rules on
analyst conflicts of interest; the recognition of generally accepted
accounting standards; as well as studies and reports relating to both
principles-based accounting and off-balance sheet transactions and
special purpose entities. I am confident that the Commission and its
dedicated staff will continue to work tirelessly to implement these
remaining provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Other rulemakings under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, although not
limited to a statutory deadline, also will play an important role in
improving investor confidence in the credibility of reported financial
information. For example, management and auditor reports on an issuer's
quality controls over its accounting and financial reporting systems
may enhance the quality and implementation of those controls, which, in
turn, should improve the quality of financial reports and audits.
Another important area that will require the use of more Commission
resources is international affairs. The development of international
accounting, auditing, disclosure and enforcement standards is gaining
momentum and will require more monitoring of and participation in
international bodies that are promulgating and interpreting standards
that could impact the credibility of information used by American
investors.
conclusion
In closing, let me reiterate how honored I am to serve as Chairman
of the Commission at this time of great opportunity. Thank you again
for inviting me today to speak on behalf of the needs of the investing
public. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
PAY PARITY
Senator Gregg. Well, thank you, Chairman Donaldson. I have
a couple of questions. First, after considerable effort we were
able to get pay parity in place for the SEC. I'm wondering how
it is working, whether you think it is going to allow you to
attract the types of individuals you need and keep the
individuals who are there and who are critical. You are in a
business which, up until a few years ago at least, was
extremely competitive for staff, although now you may be able
to find staff with a little more ease. Our concern is that the
SEC retain its caliber staff. Is there something further we
should do, or is pay parity working?
Mr. Donaldson. Well, I think, bottom line, pay parity is
working. We probably have had too short a period of time to
measure, but just to give you some numbers, our attrition rate
before pay parity was averaging around 14 percent, and our
latest figures indicate that it's 4 percent or less right now,
so so far, so good. There are other items associated with the
hiring of professionals which maybe we can get into, but as far
as pay parity, it seems to be working. It's a tremendous help.
HEDGE FUNDS
Senator Gregg. A question in another area, hedge funds are
sort of viewed as the Wild West of the investing community
these days, especially Wall Street. I'm wondering if the SEC
has any concerns about whether or not we need additional, or
whether or not you intend to propose additional, regulatory
activity in the area of hedge funds and accounting disclosures
and activities there.
Mr. Donaldson. Clearly, the whole area of hedge funds is
one in which we need to have more information. The latest
numbers indicate that there are some 6,000 hedge funds in
operation right now, with some $600 billion under management.
The money is flowing in. The growth in hedge funds over the
last decade has been considerable.
I would stop and say that I think there's a slight misnomer
that the name hedge fund implies. Many of the funds that are
classified as hedge funds are not hedged at all, they're simply
investment pools, but let's use that term.
I think our posture on this is that the SEC has been,
before I got to the SEC, attempting to get information about
hedge funds, and since I've arrived we have initiated what will
be a roundtable discussion in May for 2 days in which we're
inviting a broad cross section of people associated with hedge
funds and so forth to come in and tell us about what they're
doing. So by the end of May we'll have a lot more information.
I would say generally that we just need to know more about
the techniques that are being used by hedge funds. We need to
know more than we know now about who is investing in these
funds. By and large they are unregulated by the SEC. Some are
regulated under the Investment Advisors Act. We see some trends
in terms of what I would call the retailization of hedge funds,
that is, the putting together of groups of smaller investors,
which is something I think we have to examine.
Up until now, by and large, you've had to have certain
investable assets and certain income levels in order to be
invested in these funds, and in order for the funds to maintain
their nonreporting status, and I think that game has shifted.
So I think it's too early for us to make a judgment, but we're
going to put some resources into looking at that so the next
time you ask that question we can give you a good answer.
Senator Gregg. Well, following up on that, from what you
said I understand you are still early into this issue, but what
do you see is the basic risk that you would be concerned about
from the standpoint of protecting the public relative to hedge
funds?
Mr. Donaldson. Well, as you well know, there was a serious
risk that almost caused a financial collapse in the case of
Long-Term Capital Management, which was a particular kind of
hedge fund that employed macroinvestment decisions and heavy
leverage. That was a great concern when the markets turned
against them, and I think the U.S. Government did a terrific
job of stepping in with the Treasury Department and the Federal
Reserve, and basically avoiding a collapse that could have been
very damaging to other people.
Right now, I think that area has been well covered. The
area of potential risk now is the new entrants into the field
that we see as Wall Street has had its problems here in the
last 3 or 4 years. We see a lot of people breaking off from
Wall Street firms, from investment counseling firms, and
setting up hedge funds--one or two people raising money for
those hedge funds--so you have a lot of potential here for
inexperienced people with a totally unregulated vehicle getting
themselves in trouble.
We don't know how much leverage is being used in some of
these funds. We need to know more about that. We need to know
more about some of the trading techniques, so that I think
right now all I can say is that we need to know more about
what's going on.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
STATUS OF ENRON CASE
Senator Hollings. Chairman Donaldson, we are very lucky, in
my opinion, to have you take this particular assignment,
because everyone has confidence in you.
I want to ask about two touchy things, one on the Kenneth
Lay case. The reason I ask is, we had the Attorney General just
the other day, and he appears before us and he relates all of
the hard-charging comedown on corporate corruption, we've
cleaned up corporate corruption in this Government of ours and
everything else, and he listed the cases and what-have-you, and
then when you ask about the leading case that we all know
about, Kenneth Lay, he said, wait a minute, I've recused
myself, I don't know anything about it. Do you?
I mean, they've made reports to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and you're the Chairman. I hope you haven't recused
yourself. Kenny boy didn't give you a contribution, did he?
Mr. Donaldson. Let me say what I can say.
Senator Hollings. The reason we're interested in this is,
right to the point, we as good lawyers know how you can bring--
we've defended the charges and we've brought charges and
assisted in the prosecution. Before the Commerce Committee the
entire California crowd appeared, and the authorities just
listed out the fraud and how it was conducted, whereby they
would ask for way more than their allocation in energy
shortages and then take the excess of that allocation and ship
it out, ship it back in and get it at the higher price because
it was imported and what-have-you.
So I said, well, wait a minute now, referring to Mr. Lay
and Enron knowing about it, I said, I remember specifically
earlier this morning Ms. Lay appeared on my TV and said her
husband didn't know anything about it, and Mr. Freeman was the
witness. He said, the dickens he didn't, he knew everything
about it. He was running it. He was in charge.
So you know, there are a lot of things about knowledge and
what-have-you, but here you've got testimony before the
Congress that they knew it, and it was a fraud, and California
now has brought suit for $7 billion or $8 billion, whatever it
is, for reimbursement, but we don't ever hear anything, and
1\1/2\ years has passed, and we all are proud about how we have
come down hard on corporate corruption, but all of a sudden
this case disappears.
In the meantime, back at the ranch, they said, wait a
minute, you know, the fellow in charge of corporate corruption
was out of the law firm that represented Enron, namely Mr.
Larry Thompson, so what gives here? I mean, I'm trying to find
out the status of that case.
Mr. Donaldson. Well, you bring up a number of issues; there
is the criminal case, and there is the civil case. Just to give
you a little background, the Enron criminal investigation is
being led by the Enron Task Force, and that was formed in
January of 2002 to investigate all the matters related to
Enron, and it is overseen by President Bush's Corporate Fraud
Task Force which includes us, the SEC, and the Department of
Justice. It is a team of federal prosecutors supervised by the
Criminal Division and agents of the FBI and the IRS Criminal
Division.
That task force also has coordinated with and received
considerable assistance from the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Now, as far as the civil case is concerned, last
August the SEC filed a case against Michael Kopper, who is a
former top Enron official accused of violating antifraud
provisions, and then in October we filed a case against Andrew
Fastow, who is Enron's former CFO, alleging violations of the
antifraud, periodic reporting, books and records provisions and
so forth.
Most recently, last month the Commission charged Kevin A.
Howard, the former chief financial officer, and Michael W.
Krautz, the former senior director of accounting of Enron
Broadband Services, and also March 17, charged Merrill Lynch &
Company and four of its former senior executives with aiding
and abetting Enron securities fraud. Now, that is the first
time that the SEC has brought an aider and abettor action
against a bank.
Now, as far as a general comment on your question
specifically referring to Lay----
Senator Hollings. He was the chief executive officer.
Mr. Donaldson. He was the chief executive officer, and I
think I can say that the coordination of the criminal and civil
action requires a lot of very careful building blocks, if I can
put it that way.
Senator Hollings. You are building a case, is what you're
saying?
Mr. Donaldson. The building blocks have to do with the way
the criminal justice system works. It has to do with the way
information is received. Information can be received by the
Justice Department a little more completely than it can by us.
I guess what I'm saying is, without commenting specifically on
that case, that we're on the case of all the Enron activities.
EXPENSING STOCK OPTIONS
Senator Hollings. If Mr. Donaldson says you're on the case,
that's sufficient for me. Let me ask this, and go to another
thing that Arthur Levitt, when he was the Chairman, he tried to
get these stock options expensed. We tried to, Senator Levin
from Michigan, he put in an amendment. We were all ready to
vote on the amendment, then all of a sudden the majority leader
and the minority leader said no, we are not going to take--
we're going to take it up later, and later is 1 year ago I
think, and we haven't ever taken it up.
I got right to the point with WorldCom, and one of the
officials I'm asking, I'm saying how in the Lord's world did
you give Ebbers a $400 million loan, and the answer was, we had
to. I said, you had to? He said, yeah, he had all of these
options and he had built them up and built them up, and he had
them, and he was going to cash them in twofold. He was going to
ruin the financing we had on course for WorldCom-MCI on the one
hand and of course destroy the value of the stock, so we had to
give it.
Corporate governance shouldn't work itself into that kind
of cul-de-sac, and we're ready to do it, and I have heard, I
believe, your comment that they should be expensed. You can't
do it both ways. They are an expense, but they're not one. What
is the position that the Securities and Exchange Commission has
taken? What is being done? Do you want us to write it into this
bill? I would be glad to try to write it in here that we
expensed the stock options so we can really get corporate
governance back. That was the real thing, and it's still
bothering us, these excessive executive salaries.
We had to write on the bill just the day before yesterday,
or last week I guess it was, Friday, that here we were
financing the airlines $3.5 billion. All the airlines' stock,
net worth of all the airlines does not come up to $3.5 billion.
We've given them more money than they are all worth if you put
them all together, and we said well, that's pretty bad, but
even worse is, look at these bonuses they are giving, these
millions and millions of dollars of bonuses as they all go
broke, rewards for going broke. This is what's ruining--nobody
wants to invest in a stock market that's got those kind of
stock options on the one hand and financing companies giving
excessive bonuses and everything else like that on the other
hand for going broke. That's the problem that you have.
Mr. Donaldson. Well, let me make just a couple of comments.
I have made, as you allude to, comments on this subject during
my confirmation hearing, and I will state again unequivocally
that I believe that stock options are an expense and that that
expense needs to be reflected. That is point number one.
Point number two, and the more difficult question, is how
to do it? How do you come up with a value? In a complex
situation in terms of valuing those options over differing
periods of years and so forth, and different markets, what is
the value that should be reflected on the day that those
options are given? A lot of them expire with no value. A lot of
them are tremendously valuable. How do you rate that? How do
you do it?
The FASB has committed themselves now to come up with a
formula for expensing those options and an accounting standard
for doing so, and I'm going to be very interested to see that
standard. It is not an easy calculation, but they have
committed themselves.
Senator Hollings. Will that be a rule of the Commission,
then, once they make that recommendation?
Mr. Donaldson. As you know, under the new arrangement with
the Public Accounting Board, we will both be very much
listening to the rules proposed by FASB. I think we are going
to see that your desires are fulfilled here.
Senator Hollings. And your desires.
Mr. Donaldson. And my desires, absolutely.
Senator Hollings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. That will have a tax effect too. Will the
Treasury be included in that exercise?
Mr. Donaldson. The final rule will be an accounting rule,
and our new oversight board with the primary responsibility at
the first level will be there, but of course their rulings and
so forth come through us and have to be approved by us, so we
will have the ultimate responsibility.
PUBLIC COMPANY ACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BOARD
Senator Gregg. How about this accounting board? How are you
doing in getting that going, and especially what are we going
to pay these people, talking about pay?
Mr. Donaldson. As to the status of the Board, as I've said
publicly, it is a number one priority for me as the new SEC
Chairman to get the right person to be Chairman of the
Accounting Board. Although I'm saying me, it ultimately is our
Commission that will appoint that chairman.
We instituted a process within 1 week of my arrival, a
process for searching for that person. I will not bore you with
all the details of the process, except to say that we reached
out in a broad and public way to add to our list. We talked to
anybody and everybody that would talk to us about making
suggestions. We brought in a tremendous number of names. We
then had a time-phased process that boiled that down.
We have boiled it down. We are in an advanced stage now,
and I think that what I would say is that for anybody that has
been in the recruiting business, if you will, we don't want to
make a mistake on this. We want to get the right person, and
generally speaking, the right person is not always readily
available.
Again, my experience has been that oftentimes the right
person is happily doing something else, and so it is a
recruiting effort to get the right person to come. But I am
encouraged by the work to date, and I think presently we will
have somebody, sooner, I hope, than later.
Senator Gregg. Not to be parochial about this, but you're
the right person for the SEC. You would probably be the right
person for this board also, and obviously in taking the SEC job
you're not getting paid a lot of money compared to what you
made in the private sector. Yet the salary for this accounting
board is being set at like $500,000, which is about twice what
we pay the President.
Mr. Donaldson. I can tell you what the relationship is to
my salary.
Senator Gregg. Your salary and my salary. The Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court is paid about $160,000, I think. I'm not
sure that it is understandable why we need to pay so much. I
mean, isn't the person who takes this job going to be mostly
doing it as a public service, as you are doing your job, as the
President does his, and we hopefully do ours, and as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court does his?
Mr. Donaldson. Well, I understand exactly what you're
saying, and I think you have to go into the history, which you
probably know better than I do, of the Sarbanes-Oxley
legislation and what went into the status of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board, and it is not a Government agency.
It was set up as an independent privately incorporated agency.
Senator Hollings. Why?
Mr. Donaldson. The reason for that, and again I'm
speculating on this because I had nothing to do with
establishing it, was that there are a lot of other entities out
there in the private sector such as the FASB and other entities
like that, which are attracting people to work there with
private sector compensation. And I think the intention of
Sarbanes-Oxley was to be able to go out and get not only the
members of the Board, but also to get staff members, who were
competitive with the best people available out there. So the
Oversight Board was ordered to set a salary level that was
comparable to what would exist, not in total private sector
America, but comparable organizations.
They did that and came up with that salary level. Actually
it is slightly over $500,000 for the Chairman and $450,000, I
think, for the members of the Board, and that received the kind
of negative comments which you've expressed here.
I will stop there, except to say that they are doing what
they were ordered to do. Whether they could have modified it or
presented it in a better way remains to be seen.
Senator Gregg. I suspect the right person to do it won't do
it just to make money.
Mr. Donaldson. Excuse me, not to interrupt you, but I think
you just don't know--I mean, you just don't know. You're
absolutely right that certain people are not going to do it,
but certain other people maybe will.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
Senator Gregg. On Sarbanes-Oxley, how is it working? It's 8
months into it. I hear grumbling. Maybe that's because it's
working. Do you see issues out there that we're going to need
to revisit?
Mr. Donaldson. As you know, the SEC has been in an
extensive rulemaking mode here, and we're coming to the end of
that.
I think that so far, so good. I think that the system is
working the way it should work, which is that a law is passed
and the rulemaking based on public comment and so forth can
address some of the unintended consequences of the law,
maintaining the spirit of the law, but being practical about
the unintended consequences.
I think it is working quite well. If you go out into
corporate America, particularly in the audit committee
function, which is where some of the rules are most advanced, I
think there's a heightened awareness of the responsibility of
the audit committee.
There are still some issues that we have to cover by
rulemaking, but I think it's working pretty well. I say pretty
well because there's a lot of nervousness out in corporate
America about just exactly what these rules mean. There's a lot
of tentativeness, and that creates a kind of a distraction in
my view for people running companies. They can become so tied
up in trying to conform to the letter of the law that the risk
here is that they lose flexibility and lose sight of what's
needed to run an entrepreneurial company. That is a risk.
My own feeling in this is that--and I probably shouldn't
say this--but I feel very strongly that we can pass all the
laws that we want to, but we need the atmosphere inside the
company to be moral. The philosophy of running the company
should be that the chief executive and the board says this is
the kind of company we want to be, and we're not going to skate
right up to the minimum required by the letter of the law.
We're going to stop well short of that because that's the kind
of company we want to run, and until companies do that and have
a code of ethics that is more than just written on paper, I
think we will not have solved our problems.
I might go on to say that I think that there is a shift
here, largely as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley, of the power, if
you will, and authority to the board away from the chief
executive who operates as he or she wants to. Gradually the
boards of directors are recognizing that it is their
responsibility to the shareholders to set that tone, and then
to hire management that has the same feelings about the ethics
of doing business.
EFFECT OF SARBANES-OXLEY ON CORPORATE DIRECTORS
Senator Gregg. I couldn't agree more with your explanation
of the philosophy and how it should work. I'm wondering,
however, if, with Sarbanes-Oxley and the litigation atmosphere,
we haven't created a situation where the traditional director
no longer wishes to serve on a board of directors. In that
case, you're going to create an environment where you basically
end up with professional directors who are willing to take
risks. Taking risks is the way they make their money. This is,
I think, one of the strengths of corporate America, which is
that you get Main Street on your board of directors, and it may
be a well-heeled Main Street, but at least it's Main Street.
You talk to folks who serve as directors now and they're all
scared, and many of them won't serve.
Mr. Donaldson. This is a real problem, and I think there
are two solutions to it at least. One is that the corporate
directors themselves, the existing body of corporate directors
are going to have to figure out how many boards they can be on
to discharge their new obligations under Sarbanes-Oxley.
They're going to have to think through, and the boards are
going to have to think through as they recruit, that there is
an enhanced responsibility here and an enhanced risk, as you
say, and I think potential directors and existing directors are
going to have to look at that carefully.
Beyond that, I believe we're going to have to bring a whole
new cadre of directors into the game. It's been a relatively
small group of people who serve on many boards. That's been the
tradition, a lot of CEOs serving on other CEOs' boards. There
is a tremendous wealth of talent out there, out in corporate
America and elsewhere, who can be very good corporate
directors, and who have the time, and who will learn by doing
it and bring new dimensions.
This makes me feel that we have to organize the training of
these people, and searching for them, and we hope to be very
active in that. I commend the number of business schools and
law schools in the country, and the New York Stock Exchange,
who are all moving toward director education, if you will. And
we want to help them do that and intend to help them do that,
so I think you are going to find a lot of, I'll say young
people, but maybe older people who have not had a crack at it,
who have something to offer and are willing to take that
challenge. But we'll see.
Senator Hollings. Along that line, just as an aside, when I
was a young Governor from 1958 to 1962, that is what I had. My
Bible was right there, Dun & Brad, and I could just pick out
those corporate directors, and there wasn't any training. They
were just drinking buddies. I mean, the GE served on the IBM,
served on the General Motors, served on the Dupont. I mean, you
could find them all. I wove them into what we called the
plantation society. We've got over 100 plantations in the low
country of South Carolina, and each Sunday at 11 o'clock they
would have a brunch and go from one to the other, and I was
always at those brunches to meet those folks and everything
else, and then talk to them and try to get them to move their
industry, try to carpetbag New Hampshire.
Senator Gregg. You did a good job of it, too.
Senator Hollings. We had a good time doing it, but those
corporate--they were good. They were good. I found all the CEOs
and everything else very good, but it's gotten to the extreme.
The quarterly reports and the life of a CEO is what, 3 years or
something. He's got to get the stock up or they get him out, or
whatever it is. They just take the money and run, all kind of
bonuses, everything else like that. You've got a tough job
trying to change that with the stock exchange and everything
else and the business schools, as you indicate, working on it.
You do a lot of good work. Thank you.
CONCLUSION
Senator Gregg. Do you have anything else you wish to add?
Mr. Donaldson. Again, I'm delighted to be here.
Senator Gregg. The check is in the mail.
Mr. Donaldson. I might just add one thing, if I can, which
relates to the hiring of the people that we have to hire, we
can hire lawyers quite easily because they don't have to go
through the Civil Service posting and all of the competitive
service requirements.
We are having real problems hiring accountants and
economists and examiners. It is hard for us to compete out
there under existing hiring regulations; therefore we have been
working hard to see if we can't get those laws changed, and the
House is ready to vote out an excepted service exception for
us. By the way, our union has agreed with this, and we have
sent a letter from myself and the head of the union, who
cooperated with us. So--you asked if there was anything else
you could do.
Senator Gregg. Well, we have been known to put authorizing
language in our bill, so if you want to get us the language,
and if we can get the agreement of Senator Shelby----
Senator Hollings. That might help move it along. Any need
like that, just contact the chairman.
Mr. Donaldson. Well, I know it is not the direct
jurisdiction of this committee, but it helps us.
Senator Gregg. Well, everything is in the jurisdiction of
this committee. This is the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Donaldson. Okay.
Senator Hollings. That's the way I was taught.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. Thank you very much.
The next hearing is scheduled on Thursday, April 10, at 10
o'clock in this room, and at that time we will hear from the
Director of the FBI.
[Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, 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 2004
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Hollings and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. The hearing will come to order.
We appreciate Director Mueller taking time out of his very
busy schedule at the FBI, which is obviously one of the premier
agencies in this country for protecting our Nation in this time
of heightened concern. The FBI has taken, I think, a dramatic
role in the area of leading this effort and has a huge
portfolio and, thus, it is nice to have the Director here to
talk to us about his budget and about his game plan.
And, Senator Hollings, do you have an opening statement?
Senator Hollings. No. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. So we will turn to you, Director.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings. I
beg your indulgence for a short statement.
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER
Mr. Mueller. Let me just start by saying as I think you
have pointed out, and due in no small part to the support we
have had from this committee, the FBI is undergoing
extraordinary and, I believe, positive changes. I believe we
are more prepared today than we ever have been to meet the
threats posed by terrorists, foreign intelligence services and
criminal enterprises. The changes we have made in the past 18
months, and many others that are ongoing, will ensure that the
FBI stays on top of current and future threats well into the
21st century.
I believe that our fiscal year 2004 budget request will
give us the resources we need to continue our positive
momentum. As you are well aware, our total request is $4.6
billion, and we are requesting program changes totaling $513
million including 2,346 new positions, 503 of which will be for
special agents.
I would like to spend a moment walking you through some of
our progress to date in certain areas, the assessment of the
threats that we still face in this country, and the changes
that we are making to align our resources to the threats we
confront.
COUNTERTERRORISM
As I know you are aware, our top three priorities currently
are counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber crime. In
turning first to counterterrorism, since the attacks of
September 11th, the FBI has made the prevention of terrorist
attacks our number one priority. I am pleased to report our
efforts have yielded major successes over the last 18 months.
As you are aware, we have disrupted suspected terrorist cells
in Buffalo, Detroit, and Portland. And the recent apprehension
in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key planner and the
mastermind of the September 11th attack, is also a significant
achievement in the war on terrorism.
We also have been successful in choking off terrorists'
ability to fund their acts of terror. We have frozen $125
million from more than 600 accounts around the world, and
conducted 70 financial investigations with 23 convictions to
date.
Also in Pakistan, last month the Pakistanis apprehended
Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a major financial planner for Al-
Qaeda.
As Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations change
tactics, the FBI must be equally agile. We, too, must evolve,
and we are evolving. We have dramatically increased our
intelligence analysis and dissemination capabilities and are
now focusing on long-term strategies to upgrade these
capabilities.
Our fiscal year 2004 request includes approximately $1
billion in direct support for counterterrorism. Understandably,
the number of counterterrorism cases has risen dramatically
since September 11, 2001, and the recent capture of high-
ranking Al-Qaeda operatives and the information we have gleaned
from their debriefings suggests that those numbers will
continue to climb.
We need to have the resources to handle those increased
numbers of counterterrorism cases. Nearly 50 percent of all of
our requested program changes in 2004, or $250 million,
supports our counterterrorism mission. In particular, the 430
positions proposed in the budget will strengthen investigative
support in the field and improve counterterrorism management
and coordination at Headquarters.
Additionally, the requested amounts would support 66 of--
the 66 Joint Terrorism Task Forces we have nationwide, which
are critical to facilitate information sharing and act as a
first line of defense against terrorist attacks.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
The second priority for us is counterintelligence. We
have--we look at our counterintelligence mission in four
sectors. First and most significant is the potential for an
agent of a hostile group or Nation to produce or use weapons of
mass destruction. Second is the potential for a foreign power
to penetrate the intelligence community. Third is the targeting
of Government-supported research and development. And finally,
the fourth is the potential compromise of certain critical
national assets spread across the United States.
Just as we are transforming our counterterrorism program,
we are also transforming our counterintelligence. We have
reorganized the program and realigned our resources to
concentrate on emerging threats. We now have full-time
counterintelligence squads in 48 of the 56 field offices
dedicated to investigating hostile foreign intelligence
services. In the 2004 budget, we are requesting $63 million and
599 positions of which 94 would be for agents.
Let me turn for a second to briefly discuss the events that
occurred yesterday in Los Angeles. As you are aware, I believe,
yesterday in Los Angeles a retired FBI supervisor, Special
Agent James J. Smith, was arrested along with a former
intelligence asset, Katrina Leung. For many years, Smith, who
had recruited Leung, served as her primary handler. The
allegations against Smith and Leung are contained in criminal
complaints which were unsealed yesterday. And because the
matter is pending in Federal Court, I really cannot comment on
the merits of these cases or on the strength of the evidence
against Smith and Leung.
I do want to point out, however, that when I learned of
these--of this possibility in January of this year, we
immediately took steps to address this issue. I brought in a
person by the name of Randy Bellows who had done the report on
Wen Ho Lee in the Justice Department, an experienced prosecutor
from the Eastern District of Virginia, to go out to Los Angeles
and review what had occurred in those cases and to come back
and give me recommendations.
Based on his recommendation, I appointed an Inspector in
Charge, and it was the individual who was the lead agent in the
Aldrich Ames case, to conduct a thorough covert investigation
of the charges in Los Angeles. We gave him a task force in
excess of 30 individuals who were separate and apart from the
Los Angeles field office. And he conducted that investigation
leading to the charges yesterday.
I have also asked the Inspector General to look at the
performance of the Bureau with regard to this and other cases
out there. And I am not content to wait for the Inspector
General's review. I have asked the Inspection Division to look
at the managers who may have had some responsibility and
immediately get back to me a report on their responsibility for
what happened out there.
I also want to point out that it is--we have, since January
of last year, instituted a number of reforms out at the FBI
Headquarters to ensure that these types of problems are
corrected, not only out there, but throughout the FBI. In June
of this last year, we established a rigorous Asset Validation
Review Program to strengthen agent accountability and
management oversight, and made significant changes in the
senior management within the Counterintelligence Division. And
as I have said before, we have promulgated a national
counterintelligence strategy with centralized program
management.
We cannot minimize the problems in the Los Angeles program,
but we have moved firmly to correct those problems. And quite
obviously, I believe that to be an isolated event and I remain
proud of the work of the many thousands of men and women of the
FBI for the service they render every day to the United States.
But we, as an organization, must learn from the mistakes of the
past so that we do not repeat them in the future.
CYBER CRIME
Leaving counterintelligence, the third priority is cyber
crime. We, as just about everybody else in the United States,
continue to see an explosive growth in cyber crimes. Last year
we established a consolidated new Cyber Division at
Headquarters to manage these investigations and to help us
coordinate our public and private sector partners.
In our 2004 budget request, we are requesting $234.4
million to protect the United States against these attacks. We
are seeking 194 positions, of which 77 would be for agents.
In addition to the traditional cyber crimes, over the past
6 years, we have seen cases involving child sexual exploitation
grow in number from 113 to over 2,300. The requested resources
for 2004 will help us to keep pace with this burgeoning
caseload.
Lastly in the cyber area, 6 out of 10 of our investigations
currently require some level of computer forensic support.
History tells us that the number of cases requiring this
support will grow. These resources would allow us--the 2004
resources which we request would allow us to expand our ability
to conduct computer forensics examinations.
TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
A last moment on our technology progress. We have made
substantial progress in the last 18 months. On March 28, we
completed the Trilogy Wide Area Network. It was completed 3
days ahead of schedule. There were some that said that we could
not do it, much less do it on time. That wide area network has
been deployed to 622 FBI locations. Over the last 18 months, we
have also installed 21,000 new desktop computers and nearly
5,000 printers and scanners.
We are now focused on implementing the data warehousing
capability that will bring together our information into a
database or databases that can be accessed by agents throughout
the world, as well as our analysts, as soon as that piece of
information is developed.
In today's world, we cannot afford to allow our technology
to become obsolete. And it is essential that we preserve these
investments by ensuring there is sufficient funding for life
cycle operations and maintenance of systems and for technology
refreshment, and the 2004 budget request includes a request for
$82 million for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the priorities I outlined
today, the FBI is also requesting funding to continue
restructuring our security programs, to augment nuclear DNA
efforts, and to support our ongoing crackdown on corporate
corruption.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I believe that my Bureau is in the process of turning a
corner in its history. We have made substantial changes to
better equip us to protect America over the last 18 months. We
must continue to evolve. We must continue to grow. And with
your support, we can give our agents the resources and tools
they need to carry out their mission of protecting America.
Thank you for the opportunity to give a brief statement.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Director. We appreciate that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III
INTRODUCTION
Good morning. Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings and members of the
Subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
the FBI's fiscal year 2004 budget request. The FBI is undergoing
extraordinary, positive change, to better meet the threats posed by
terrorists, foreign intelligence services, and criminal enterprises. We
have changed our organizational structure to address the greatest
threats facing our country, to be more dynamic and flexible, and to
ensure accountability. And we are dramatically upgrading our
information technology. These changes, and many others that are
ongoing, will ensure that the FBI stays on top of current and future
threats well into the 21st century.
The FBI's fiscal year 2004 budget request will give us the
resources we need to keep this positive momentum. Our total request is
$4.6 billion. We are requesting program changes totaling $513 million,
including 2,346 new positions, 503 of which are Special Agents. This
morning, I would like to briefly walk you through our progress to date,
our assessment of the threat and the changes we are making to align our
organization and resources to address the threat.
Before beginning, let me make one caveat to my testimony. We are
still analyzing the impact of the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act on
our 2004 request. It is possible that some changes to the request may
be required to reflect the 2003 enacted level. We will be working with
the Appropriations Committee on this analysis.
COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRESS
The prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top
priority. We are thoroughly committed to identifying and dismantling
terrorist networks, and I am pleased to report that our efforts have
yielded major successes over the past 18 months. Over 228 suspected
terrorists have been charged with crimes, 113 of whom have been
convicted to date. Some are well-known--including John Walker Lindh and
Richard Reid. But, let me give you just a few recent examples:
--In March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was located by Pakistani officials
and is in custody of the United States at an undisclosed
location. Mr. Mohammed was a key planner and the mastermind of
the September 11th attack. Since the arrest, the FBI worked
with other agencies to disrupt his financial network in the UAE
and Pakistan and we are continuing to get extremely valuable
information from him.
--On March 16, Abdullah al-Kidd, a U.S. native and former University
of Idaho football player, was arrested by the FBI at Dulles
International Airport en route to Saudi Arabia. The FBI
arrested three other men in the Idaho probe in recent weeks.
And the FBI is examining links between the Idaho men and
purported charities and individuals in six other jurisdictions
across the country.
--In February, members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, including
Professor Sami Al-Arian, were arrested by the FBI and charged
under Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations with
operating a racketeering enterprise from 1984 until the present
that engaged in violent activities.
--Six individuals in Portland, Oregon, were arrested by the FBI and
charged with conspiracy to join al Qaeda and Taliban forces
fighting against U.S. and allied soldiers in Afghanistan. All
six have entered plea negotiations.
--And, in Buffalo, the FBI arrested seven al-Qaeda associates and
sympathizers. These individuals, members of a suspected sleeper
cell, were indicted in September 2002 for providing material
support to terrorism.
In addition, we are successfully disrupting the sources of
terrorist financing, including freezing $125 million from 62
organizations and conducting 70 financial investigations, 23 of which
have resulted in convictions.
COUNTERTERRORISM THREAT
Despite these successes, tangible terrorist threats remain. During
this period, we are clearly focused on immediate threats to the nation
because of the war in Iraq. In order to respond to potential threats,
our Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI Headquarters and
our field special command posts are operating on a 24 hour basis. We
established an Iraqi Task Force. And, our agents have interviewed over
9,000 individuals and are obtaining important information to help
protect the American public.
But, even as we guard against this potential Iraqi threat, we
believe that for the foreseeable future, the al-Qaeda network will
remain one of the most serious threats facing this country. While the
United States has made progress in disrupting al-Qaeda at home and
overseas, the organization maintains the ability and the intent to
inflict significant casualties in the United States with little
warning.
CHANGING TO MEET TERRORIST THREATS
As al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations change their tactics,
the FBI, too, must evolve. And we are evolving.
Our new Analysis Branch in the Counterterrorism Division has
produced 30 in-depth analytical assessments, including a comprehensive
assessment of the terrorist threat to the homeland. We have also
improved analyst training and dramatically beefed up our language
translation capabilities.
I am now focusing on long-term strategies to enhance our ability to
collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence. I have put in place a
new, formal structure that will enable the FBI to assess gaps and to
establish formal policies and strategic plans for intelligence
collection. A new Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence (EAD/I)
will have direct authority for the FBI's national intelligence program,
and will ensure that we have optimum intelligence strategies,
structure, and policies in place.
We are establishing, in every field office, Intelligence units
staffed with Reports Officers. These specially-trained individuals
collect and extract intelligence from FBI investigations and share that
information with our law enforcement and intelligence partners.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 COUNTERTERRORISM REQUEST
Our fiscal year 2004 request includes approximately $1 billion in
direct support for counterterrorism. Nearly 50 percent of all requested
program changes, or $250 million, supports counterterrorism. In
particular, the 430 positions proposed in the fiscal year 2004 budget
will strengthen operational support around the country and improve CT
management and coordination at FBI Headquarters. New personnel would
provide an increased level of guidance, legal advice, and operational
support to investigators on the front line of the war on terrorism. We
must also continue to grow our cadre of strategic analysts. The number
of FBI counterterrorism cases more than doubled last year, and with the
recent capture of high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives, the number of cases
will continue to climb.
The requested amounts would support 66 JTTFs--critical multi-agency
task forces that facilitate cooperation and information sharing, and
act as a ``first line'' for preventing terrorist attacks. It would
expand vital international partnerships by adding new FBI Legal
Attaches in Sarajevo, Bosnia; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Tashkent,
Uzbekistan; Kabul, Afghanistan; and Belgrade, Serbia, and by enhancing
our presence in several existing locations to handle a growing
workload.
Approval of this budget request would also improve FBI crisis
response capabilities, so we are prepared to respond to the scene of a
terrorist attack at home or abroad quickly and effectively, with the
equipment we need.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRESS
Mr. Chairman, so far this morning I have focused on the terrorist
threats facing this country. Our counterintelligence efforts are also
vital to national security. I want to emphasize that the FBI is
thoroughly engaged in fighting the serious threat from foreign
intelligence services and their assets. The FBI had several successful
investigations in this area. Last month, Brian Regan agreed to accept a
life sentence for attempted espionage and unlawful gathering of defense
information. In October 2002, Ana Montes was sentenced to 25 years in
prison following her plea of guilty to one count conspiracy to commit
espionage on behalf of Cuba.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS
Intelligence threats fall into four general categories. The most
significant--and our top counterintelligence priority--is the potential
for an agent of a hostile group or nation to enhance its capability to
produce or use weapons of mass destruction. A second threat is the
potential for a foreign power to penetrate the U.S. Intelligence
Community. A third threat is the targeting of government supported
research and development. The individuals awarded research and
development contracts in support of ongoing operations and war-making
capabilities constitute the highest risk. The fourth threat is the
potential compromise of Critical National Assets (CNAs). The nation's
CNAs are those persons, information, assets, activity, R&D technology,
infrastructure, economic security or interests whose compromise would
do damage to the survival of the United States.
CHANGING TO MEET INTELLIGENCE THREATS
Just as we have worked to transform ourselves within the
counterterrorism program, we have made significant changes to the FBI's
counterintelligence program. Last May, when I announced the second
phase of the FBI reorganization, I indicated that we would be
refocusing our counterintelligence program to focus on the four threats
I outlined. That effort is progressing with a centralized, nationally
directed program. We established a Counterespionage Section responsible
for overseeing all of the FBI's counterespionage efforts, including
economic espionage, and we clarified our priorities and objectives in a
``National Strategy for Counterintelligence.''
With your support, we reprogrammed 216 positions from criminal
investigations to counterintelligence, and we now have full-time
counterintelligence squads in 48 of the 56 field offices.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2004, we ask your support for program changes
totaling $63 million and 599 positions, including 94 agents, to further
our counterintelligence strategy. These resources would provide the
necessary investigators, analysts, and surveillance capabilities needed
to address emerging global threats, bolster both our fixed and mobile
surveillance capabilities, and improve our ability to detect espionage
activities targeting national assets and universities.
CYBER CRIME PROGRESS
Next, I would like to discuss our third priority--cyber. We have
created a consolidated new Cyber Division at Headquarters to manage
investigations into Internet-facilitated crimes, to support
investigations throughout the Bureau that call for technical expertise,
and to help us coordinate with public and private sector partners.
This strategy is proving successful. Our computer intrusion
program, for example, has identified over 5,000 compromised computers,
and resulted in 320 convictions and $20.4 million in restitutions.
During 2002, Innocent Images National Initiative investigations
resulted in 692 arrests, 648 indictments/informations, and 646
convictions. And despite using only 5 percent of all FBI resources, the
Cyber Program is facilitating investigative activities across all
Bureau programs.
CYBER CRIME THREAT
Unfortunately, we are seeing explosive growth in cyber crime--both
traditional crimes such as fraud and copyright infringement that have
migrated on-line, and new crimes like computer intrusions and denial of
service attacks.
To date, terrorists have posed only low-level cyber threats, but
some organizations are increasingly using information technology for
communication. Terrorist groups are increasingly computer savvy, and
with publicly available hacker tools, many have the capability to
launch nuisance attacks against Internet-connected systems. As
terrorists become more computer savvy, their attack options will
increase.
CHANGING TO MEET CYBER THREATS
Looking forward, our Cyber Program will focus on identifying and
neutralizing: (1) individuals or groups conducting computer intrusions
and spreading malicious code; (2) intellectual property thieves; (3)
Internet fraudsters; and (4) on-line predators that sexually exploit or
endanger children. Our success will depend on maintaining state-of-the-
art technical capabilities to handle complex investigations and forming
and maintaining public/private alliances.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2004, the FBI is requesting $234.4 million to
protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-
technology crimes. This request represents program changes of $62
million and 194 positions, including 77 agents. These resources will
enable the FBI to staff computer intrusion squads in field offices,
enhance technical capacities to identify persons illegally accessing
networks, and provide funding for the training and equipment we need to
more aggressively investigate cyber incidents. The requested resources
will enable the FBI to increase its efforts to detect the sexual
exploitation of children on the Internet. Over the past six years we
have seen these cases grow in number from 113 to over 2,300. We must
increase our commitment here. Finally, the resources would allow us to
expand our ability to conduct computer forensics examinations. Right
now, 6 out of 10 investigations require some level of computer
forensics support. History tells us that the number of cases requiring
this support will continue to grow and that the number of forensic
examinations required per investigation will also continue to grow.
TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS
I would like to touch on our efforts to upgrade FBI technology.
Over the past two years the FBI has made significant progress in
modernizing our information technology infrastructure to better support
our investigative needs. On March 28, we completed the Trilogy Wide
Area Network--three days ahead of schedule. High-speed local area
networks have been deployed to 622 FBI locations. Over 21,000 new
desktop computers and nearly 5,000 printers and scanners have been
provided. The Enterprise Operations Center, which will manage our
computer networks, becomes operational early this spring.
We are now focused on implementing a corporate data warehousing
capability that is key to FBI intelligence, investigative, and
information sharing initiatives as well as to our records management
system.
Trilogy will change the FBI culture from paper to electronic. It
will replace redundant searches of stove-piped systems. Agents will
search multiple databases--linking thousands of data points of
evidence, leads and suspects--through a single portal. Trilogy is the
base for a modern computer architecture. Trilogy computers, servers,
and networks will support state-of-the-art applications. Using Trilogy
to transport, the Integrated Data Warehouse will link 31 FBI databases
for single-portal searches and data mining. The Collaborative
Capabilities program will allow electronic data sharing with other
agencies.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
We are now at the point in our information technology upgrade where
it is essential that we preserve these investments by ensuring there is
sufficient funding for life-cycle operations and maintenance of systems
and for technology refreshment. The fiscal year 2004 request includes
increases of $82 million to fund technology refreshment and operations
and maintenance. These resources will ensure that the equipment we have
deployed stays in good working order, and that it is replaced in an
orderly manner. The FBI can never again allow its equipment to become
obsolete.
OTHER PROGRAMS
We are completely restructuring our internal security programs and
processes. We have created a dedicated Security Division and are
consolidating security functions under a single management structure.
As we implement these changes to improve security, we are addressing
recommendations in the Webster and Rand reports. The fiscal year 2004
request includes increases of $37 million and 126 positions, including
32 agents. These resources will fund polygraph examinations, guard
services, and other security expenses.
The FBI Laboratory's R&D efforts generated more than 120 projects,
providing more than 100 deliverable products to the operational units,
58 technical publications, and 126 scientific presentations, in the
last three years. The FBI's Combined DNA Index System software is used
by 185 domestic and 23 foreign laboratories. The fiscal year 2004
request includes $3.28 million and 32 positions funding nuclear DNA and
the Federal Convicted Offender Program.
I will conclude with the FBI's Criminal Program. We have opened
more than 85 major corporate fraud investigations. At the end of fiscal
year 2002, the FBI had five corporate fraud investigations with losses
in excess of $1 billion. Currently, this number has increased to eight.
Forty-five FBI field offices are participating in multi-agency
corporate fraud working groups. The fiscal year 2004 request includes
$16 million and 164 positions, including 54 agents. The request will
fund additional investigators to support this initiative.
CLOSING
The FBI has turned a corner in its history. With the support of
Congress, we have been able to make dramatic and substantive changes.
Our transformation continues because the threats facing the U.S.
homeland continue to evolve. I want to reassure you that we are
committed to protecting this country from those who seek to harm us
through acts of terror, espionage, cyber attacks, or criminal acts.
Every citizen must be able to enjoy the basic freedoms this great
nation provides. The men and women of the FBI understand their roles in
these challenging and uncertain times. With your support, we can give
them the resources and tools they need to carry out our mission.
Thank you.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Senator Gregg. Maybe you could give us your thoughts on
where we stand in fighting terrorism.
Mr. Mueller. Looking at it from our perspective alone, the
FBI is responsible for understanding the terrorist threats
within the United States. Each month as we reorient our work
force, as we increase our information technology (IT)
capability, as we grow analytical capability, as we bring on
more translators, as we focus on addressing counterterrorism as
our number one priority and, as everyone in the organization
comes to understand that, I think we have grown in our
capability of understanding the threats within our borders.
That does not mean that we could not still face individuals
coming into the United States, sleepers who come in
individually under our radar screen and, pursuant to some plot
originated and directed overseas, contemplate a terrorist
attack. But each month I believe that we have moved to better
our capabilities and understanding of the terrorist threats
within our borders.
And if you couple that with the successes overseas, the
arrest of Abu Zabaydah, the arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh, the
detention of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the detention of Mustafa
Ahmed al-Husawi, and our continuing debriefings of these
individuals, our view of the capabilities of Al-Qaeda becomes
more transparent and it gives us more confidence that we have
an understanding of plots in the past, plots that were on the
table as future possibilities.
We still face a substantial threat, principally from Al-
Qaeda and their desire, willingness, capabilities, and unity of
mission to kill Americans. So on the one hand, I think we are
doing a much better job both here and overseas. On the other
hand, we still face a substantial threat.
Senator Gregg. What percentage of the agents are now
involved in counterterrorism?
Mr. Mueller. I believe it is up to--let me just check for a
second if I could.
Senator Gregg. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, it is 23 percent. I had to check my
figures.
Senator Gregg. And what percentage are involved in the
counterintelligence? And is that an overlapping number?
Mr. Mueller. It is not an overlapping number, although--let
me just--let me see if I can give you the figures, the
percentage.
I was just informed that we generally do not--I would be
happy to provide the number of counterintelligence in closed
session. Generally we do not give out the percentages or the
numbers in open session.
I will tell you that it is not an overlap. However, the--
since September 11th, my directions to the SACs, Special Agents
in Charge, around the country is that their first priority is
counterterrorism. There should be no counterterrorism lead that
goes unaddressed. And consequently, we have overburned, as you
would say, in counterterrorism substantially in the wake of
September 11th, and that continues to drop until October of
this year. And then as we ginned up for the response to the, at
that time, probable incursion into Iraq, the numbers that were
dedicated to counterterrorism ramped up again.
And so there will be and there has been in the wake of
September 11th, and there has been in anticipation and during
the war in Iraq, a number of individuals who have been taken
from other programs, including counterintelligence, to meet the
short-term needs of addressing the September 11th
investigation, and then the responsibility for protecting the
United States from terrorist attacks which might have been
associated with the war in Iraq.
CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE
Senator Gregg. Let us take the field office, arbitrarily
choosing Chicago as a large one. How many agents approximately
do you think you have there? Do you know?
Mr. Mueller. I just do not have that off the top of my
head.
Senator Gregg. Let us say it is 500. What----
Mr. Mueller. I would say----
Senator Gregg. What percentage----
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Yes, probably 500 or 600 in
Chicago.
[The information follows:]
Number of Agents in Chicago Field Office
As of April 10, 2003, the Chicago Field Office had a Funded
Staffing Level of 422 agents.
Senator Gregg. What percentage would be doing
counterterrorism, and what percentage would be doing
counterintelligence, and what percentage would be doing what
they have always done in Chicago, chasing city officials?
Mr. Mueller. I would be happy to get you those figures, but
I can tell you in the wake of September 11th, there would have
been a ramp up, a substantial ramp up in which probably 50 to
60 percent of the agents in the months from October 2001 to
April, May or June 2002, were addressing counterterrorism.
As you got further away from September 11th, the numbers
would drop back and be addressing the other programs, so that I
would venture to say in a place like Chicago, 30 percent would
be doing counterterrorism at the low point, August, September,
before we started ramping up for Iraq. Now it is probably
higher. And it certainly has been higher in the last several
weeks because we completed, around the country, interviews in
excess of 9,000 individual Iraqis who have provided us with
tremendous information helpful to the forces overseas. But we
have undertaken and completed 9,400 interviews around the
country and we had to use agents from different programs.
So if you look at it today, the percentage who would be
working on what we say is counterterrorism would be a lot
higher. If you looked at it back in August, I would say
probably 20 to 30 percent of the Chicago office was working on
counterterrorism. A lesser percent would be working on
counterintelligence. A lesser percent would be working on
cyber. And then a substantial number in the overall criminal
programs, probably close to 40 percent, 30 to 40 percent, would
be on all of the criminal programs. That would be public
corruption, violent crime, gangs, organized crime, all lumped
together under the criminal programs.
[The information follows:]
Clarification: Percentage Increase of Agents in Chicago Field Office
Focusing on Counterterrorism Prior to September 11 to May/June of 2002,
and During War With Iraq
``In the wake of September 11, there would have been a ramp
up, a substantial ramp up in which probably 50 to 60 percent of
the agents in the months from October of 2001 to April, May or
June of 2002, were addressing counterterrorism.''
In fiscal year 2001 (October 1, 2000-September 30, 2001)
12.1 percent of all FBI field agents Bureau-wide were working
counterterrorism. In the Chicago field office, 14.1 percent of
agents were working counterterrorism.
From October 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001, 52.4
percent of all FBI field agents were working counterterrorism.
In the Chicago field office, 34.7 percent of agents were
working counterterrorism.
From October 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, 34.5 percent of
all FBI field agents were working counterterrorism. In the
Chicago field office, 26.7 percent of agents were working
counterterrorism.
``As you got further away from September 11th, the numbers
would drop back and be addressing the other programs, so that I
would venture to say in a place like Chicago 30 percent would
be doing counterterrorism I would say at the low point, August,
September, before we started ramping up for Iraq. Now it is
probably higher.''
From October 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002, 22.3
percent of all FBI field agents were working counterterrorism.
In the Chicago field office, 19.2 percent of agents were
working counterterrorism.
From October 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003, 24.4 percent
of all FBI field agents were working counterterrorism. In the
Chicago field office, 19.6 percent of agents were working
counterterrorism.
The chart below illustrates these figures.
The number of FBI agents involved in counterintelligence in
the Chicago office is classified. The classified response is
provided in a separate document.
SUMMARY CHART OF AVERAGE FIELD AGENT ONBOARD FOR TOTAL FBI AND THE CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau \1\ Chicago \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------
Time Period Avg. Avg. CT Percent Avg. Avg. CT Percent
Agents Agents of Total Agents Agents of Total
Onboard Onboard Agents Onboard Onboard Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001: 10/1/00-9/30/01................... 9,048 1,092 12.1 384 54 14.1
Fiscal year 2002, 1st Qtr: 10/1/01-12/31/01......... 8,904 4,666 52.4 377 131 34.7
Fiscal year 2002, 3rd Qtr: 10/1/01-6/30/02.......... 8,791 3,029 34.5 371 99 26.7
Fiscal year 2003, 1st Qtr: 10/1/02-12/31/02......... 8,826 1,964 22.3 381 73 19.2
Fiscal year 2003, 2nd Qtr: 10/1/02-3/31/03.......... 8,884 2,172 24.4 378 74 19.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These number do not include Supervisory Special Agents.
COUNTERTERRORISM TRAINING
Senator Gregg. What percentage of the curriculum at
Quantico is dedicated to counterterrorism?
Mr. Mueller. I can tell you that it has increased. I do not
know the exact percentages. The basic skills, and by that I
mean the skills that cut across all of the various substantive
programs of the Bureau, probably take up 50 or 60 percent--and
this is off the top of my head, and I would have to get you the
exact figures. It is probably 50 to 60 percent.
Thank you. For a percentage--I can tell you that since
September 11th, we have added 32 hours of counterterrorism and
counterintelligence training to the--on the counterterrorism
and counterintelligence curriculum for the new agents. We also
are putting in a separate training session specifically for
counterintelligence.
[The information follows:]
Percentage of Curriculum at Quantico Dedicated to Counterterrorism (CT)
Currently, New Agents receive 116 hours of Investigative
Training. Of these, 55 hours (approximately 47 percent) are
dedicated directly to counterterrorism and counterintelligence
training. Because these two training initiatives are extremely
inter-related, singling out CT-exclusive training is difficult.
All other training, such as Legal, Forensics, and Firearms, is
an integral part of New Agent Training, but is not program-
specific. Additionally, CT analysts are also trained at
Quantico in the College of Analytical Studies. The training
includes a basic six-week course. Several advanced analyst
courses have been developed as well.
FBI CULTURE
Senator Gregg. I guess my question goes to this: How much
has the culture changed? I mean, does the agent in the field
today think that he is primarily a counterintelligence,
counterterrorism agent? Or does he still think he is a super
police officer----
Mr. Mueller. I think the----
Senator Gregg [continuing]. Or she?
Mr. Mueller. No, I think that there are a couple of ways of
looking at it. At the outset I would say when we talk about
culture and when you think on it, if you looked at your FBI
agent, the FBI agent is patriotic needless to say, dedicated,
honorable, wants to do the job that is set by their country, in
the same way that the military is. When a person joins the
military, they do what the President directs for the military,
to be one place one day and the next place the next day.
In the past, we have been focused on cases with the
expectation that a case would go to court. I believe since
September 11th, almost everyone in the organization understands
that you have to look at a piece of information as a piece of
information, whether it is a piece of information for purposes
of intelligence or a piece of information that can be used all
the way into a courtroom. But it is very important for that
piece of intelligence, that piece of information available to
be looked at in a larger context of the intelligence mission of
the Bureau.
I have heard and believe that around the country, agents
who want to do counterterrorism find that the skills that they
have developed on the criminal side lend themselves to
counterterrorism investigations, and that the mix of
counterintelligence or counterterrorism experience is ideal.
There are those around the country, and there probably always
will be, who prefer doing drug investigations or white collar
crime investigations. But I believe that the Bureau has shifted
remarkably since September 11th to address and understand the
importance of the intelligence function.
I also have to give them the tools to do it. I have to give
them the analysts. I have to give them the information
technology. I have to develop the reports officers, and strip
off the sources and methods so that we become a greater part of
the intelligence community. I have to develop a cadre not just
of reports officers, but intelligence officers who will look at
things not just from the case perspective but also from the
perspective of a particular strategic target, and adopt that
which MI5 does well in certain areas in order to be successful.
And the last point I would make is the--I have looked at
MI5. I have looked at other intelligence areas, and I believe
that the combination we have of intelligence capability and law
enforcement capability under one roof is by far the best way to
go, and avoids the stovepiping that we see elsewhere.
Senator Gregg. I have a lot of other thoughts and
questions. But I will turn to Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first observe, Director Mueller, that you are not in any
trouble. Otherwise, this table would be filled up, you know.
It is not all of us here, just us chickens.
TERRORISM
With respect to the status of terrorist that the chairman
asked about, of course the real question is: Are they creating
them faster than you get rid of them? You meet every morning
and brief the President I believe.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. I wonder about the statement made by
Mubarak in Cairo to the effect that we are creating 100 bin
Ladens. That is what we have really got to worry about. We have
got to make sure that we bring, as we are doing now, a quick
end to Saddam. Otherwise, when we get that government going,
but more particularly get the President's roadmap for peace in
the Middle East ongoing--I notice that Chirac has announced a
different roadmap. Tell the President to stick to his roadmap
because--that is the creation of the terrorism.
I mean, you can put on all of these numbers of agents,
dedicate so many more agents to terrorism rather than to drugs
or to crime or white collar, this or that, but unless and until
we get to the source of the creation of them, they are creating
them fast. That was the whole--but we have got our fingers
crossed right now about the victory in Iraq. We have hit the
bowl. The question is whether the follow-through is going to
really work. And it is going to be extremely difficult to get
all of these religious sects and get a democratic government.
It is going to be tough.
But that is the answer to the question of the status of
terrorism, because it could be that we are creating them faster
than you can get rid of them.
Otherwise, on the culture, that is another difficult job
that you have. And you talk about the agent out there, and
you--it is a question of how do you get them so that they
believe they are beyond the law or they can out-trick the law
or they devolve into corruption or that kind, where they swap
sides. We have had Miller and Hanssen, for one thing. I would
have burned Hanssen. I do not know where you all get this that
you can get more--I mean that was one clear-cut case and the
files got him. So we had all the more that we could have gotten
out of him.
And if you do not really treat it as treason they will
continue to say, ``Well, the jail is not so bad.'' I know we
have built one down in South Carolina. I went to see it, and
they had better rooms in the jail than they had the Citadel
when I went to school. They have TV there. They have exercises,
you know, and you can play ball in the afternoon and all of
that kind of stuff. So the fellow who is hungry and out there--
I have worked on jails--if he does not have a pretty good go at
it, he said he can get three squares and a warm place, and they
get into crime.
Similarly, if there is no real penalty and they get just
wonderful security and three squares, what is the risk? You
know what I mean.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
Senator Hollings. Otherwise, we and the State Department
swap around our ambassadors and chiefs of stations. We find--is
there a swap-around system particularly in counterintelligence,
where they just do not stay there and get corrupted in that
sense? The Methodist ministry does that. I know we do that with
Circuit judges in South Carolina.
Somehow we have got to give polygraphs to everyone in
counterintelligence. Every 3 years, I think, is the practice.
When last did J.J. Smith get a polygraph?
Mr. Mueller. I am not certain, Senator, on J.J. Smith. I
can tell you that on the--on Ms. Leung, the other individual,
she was polygraphed back in the 1980s but not more recently
than that. I have to----
Senator Hollings. Well, now----
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Tell you that we have changed our
policy in the wake of----
Senator Hollings. You have changed your policy?
Mr. Mueller. We have changed our----
Senator Hollings. Thank goodness.
Mr. Mueller. We have dramatically improved our----
Senator Hollings. I asked Judge Freeh about Hanssen----
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Use of polygraphs.
Senator Hollings [continuing]. And he had not had one in 20
years.
Mr. Mueller. I also took one before my confirmation.
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mueller. So I have been through it along with everybody
else, and it was an experience.
[The information follows:]
Most Recent Polygraph of Special Agent James J. Smith, Subject of
Espionage Case in Los Angeles, California
Operating under previous policies, Agent Smith never
received a polygraph examination, as he retired prior to the
Hanssen case. Under the current polygraph policies, an agent in
a similar position would be subject to periodic 5-year
reinvestigations requiring a counterintelligence-specific
polygraph, and would also be subject to random testing. In
addition, all new employees are subjected to a pre-employment
polygraph.
Senator Hollings. I was on the Intelligence Committee, and
we knew good and well where the leaks were in the staff, and so
you never ask a man to do something that you are not going to
do yourself. We learned that in the war. So I went over to the
Capitol Police; it was a 2-hour thing. And the first question,
I started my answer, I said, ``Well, in my humble opinion,''
and the damn needle just went right straight across.
Senator Gregg. I am not sure a polygraph has been designed
that would be able to handle your answers----
Senator Hollings. But in any event----
Senator Gregg [continuing]. Or understand them.
DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE
Senator Hollings. When 9/11 occurred, it was like--it is
like that, ``When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles,
scream and shout.'' And one of the screams was, ``We need a
whole new division of domestic intelligence rather than the
FBI. I think you are handling it. You are reorganizing it, but
it has sort of been top secret in that sense that--I have
explained to colleagues what you have been doing. Somehow you
have a PR man. That is all J. Edgar had. Find out his
descendant and get him.
And tell what is going on, that can be told, because they
do not realize the tremendous effort you have made on domestic
intelligence.
TRILOGY
With respect to the Trilogy, as I understand you said you
were going to have a cost overrun of $137.9 million. And we
asked you to take it out of the hide of the budget, and that
was going to require a reprogramming.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. Have you got that reprogramming request
before us?
Mr. Mueller. I have the--it is over at the Department of
Justice at this point.
[The information follows:]
Status of the Trilogy Reprogramming Request
As of April 10, 2003, the Trilogy reprogramming request was
at the Department of Justice. The request was forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 17, 2003, and
approved by OMB on April 25, 2003. On May 21, 2003, the request
was transmitted to Congress.
Senator Hollings. I see. What about keeping, now, that
Trilogy up to date? If we get all of this stuff and everything
else like that, but do we have an ongoing plan to keep it
moving and going?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, absolutely. Yes. Let me back up a second
and say that----
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. I would take responsibility for
the cost overruns.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. When I came in, it took me a while to
understand the information technology or lack thereof in the
Bureau, and the current plans to upgrade it. And it takes a
while to get it into my head because I am not a computer
programmer at all. But as we went along, it seemed to me that
our plans and what we had budgeted for and what Congress had
given us would be inadequate to the mission that we had, in the
sense that it was not upgrading our essential databases, giving
and putting it into a new, upgraded database architecture that
would be a platform for the future. And as has been described
to me by others in the Bureau, what we were doing in the
previous budget was putting lipstick on a pig.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. In other words, the pig is our old databases
and we are putting a GUI, Graphical User Interface, on it that
would make everybody happier in terms of input and output, but
would not enable us to use the analytical tools that we needed.
So I had them go back to scratch. And in going back to scratch
and developing the database structure that I believe will be
the foundation for the future, it ended up costing more. That,
coupled with the fact that we had two contractors and we need
an integrator, is principally responsible for the overruns.
Now, I believe that those changes that we have made are
absolutely indispensable to our ability to continue to refresh
our information technology down the road. It makes no sense for
us to have and put into place that which will be obsolete in 2
years. And we are increasingly looking at and focusing on what
we do in-house as a foundation for the future, whether it be 5
or 10 years down the road, and enhancing our capability to get
commercial-off-the-shelf, COTS, products in to augment what we
are doing, as those COTS products get developed by the various
contractors out in the field.
So we have asked for, I believe, something in the range
of--what is it? $82 million, is it? Yes, $82 million in the
2004 budget, principally directed at enhancing our information
technology.
[The information follows:]
Clarification: Amount Requested for Information Technology in Fiscal
Year 2004
In fiscal year 2004, the requested increase for information
technology is $82 million. The FBI requests $80 million for
Trilogy operations and maintenance (O&M) and technology
refreshment and $2 million for the Top Secret/Sensitive
Compartmented Local Area Network O&M.
Mr. Mueller. As to the $137.9 million, you are right. You
did say take it out of our base funding, and we are taking it
out of our base funding. We have the reprogramming over at the
Department of Justice. And I am looking at the information
technology dollars with a view to making certain that every one
of those dollars is spent wisely.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES (CJIS)
While I am on this subject, because it is important to the
future of the Bureau----
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. I will tell you that we have
tremendous capabilities out at CJIS, for instance, Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS, the
fingerprint databases, NICS, National Instant Criminal
Background Check System----
Senator Hollings. How long does it take with the
fingerprint thing? If I am----
Mr. Mueller. Seconds.
Senator Hollings [continuing]. The highway patrol and I
take a fellow and I have his fingerprints----
Mr. Mueller. Seconds.
Senator Hollings. Seconds?
Mr. Mueller. Seconds.
Senator Hollings. It used to take 1 month or 2 months.
Mr. Mueller. Seconds.
Senator Hollings. Yes, good.
Mr. Mueller. And with the expansion of our database, we
have a number of cases now where we have gone back 20 or 30 or
40 years and provided fingerprint matches to State and local
law enforcement entities that have enabled them to solve
homicides in ways they had not been able to solve them in the
past.
There were two officers who were killed out in Los Angeles,
something like 30 years ago. And with our enhanced
capabilities, fingerprint capability--they still have not
forgotten about that case in that police department out there.
They sent the fingerprints in from the crime scene, and it was
matched with an individual who lived down in--it may have been
South Carolina, but one of the Carolinas. I do not know which
one, or Georgia. And it turned out he had been living there for
a number of years, married, had a family, but he was
responsible for killing these two police officers 30 years ago,
and they brought him back and he pled guilty last week. That is
the kind of work that is done out at CJIS.
Now as we grow as an organization, what we have to do is
enhance our information technology capabilities there and
better integrate it in to what we do in the Bureau overall.
[The information follows:]
Clarification: IAFIS Case in Los Angeles
More than 45 years ago, two California police officers were
shot and killed. A latent fingerprint was developed from a
vehicle involved in the case, but searches of that print met
with negative results. Last year, detectives in the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Office initiated a search of the latent
fingerprint against the database of the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). The search resulted
in the identification and arrest of Mr. Gerald Mason, who was
in the database because of a 1956 burglary arrest. The FBI
notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Mason was
located and arrested at his residence in South Carolina on
January 29, 2003.
Mr. Mueller. I do not mean to get on my hobbyhorse on that,
but----
DRUGS/TERRORISM FINANCING
Senator Hollings. Oh, no, it is better to know that you
have a grasp of it, and that was really the question. And you
really know more about it than I do.
But I am a little concerned--of course, I am--sometimes I
get our chairman and so forth and we find out what we are going
to do on drugs. I started 30-some years ago right at this table
and we were burning the poppy fields in Turkey, and then we
went to Marseilles and broke up the factories, went down into
Paraguay and up to Colombia and over to the triangle at Chiang
Mai, up in Laos, and I met with the Japanese and the
Australians and everybody else. I said, ``Let us go into Burma
now and look.'' But they said, ``Oh, no, they have armies over
there. You would get killed.'' They were shipping in 50,000
pounds of heroine out through Bangkok every week, that kind of
thing.
And now, I pick up the morning paper, and the drug war in
Colombia has spilled over into Venezuela. However, the--you
keep telling us, you folks in law enforcement, that this
terrorism is financed by drug money. And I looked and see where
you moved 567 agents from drugs to counterterrorism. Can we not
ask for just more and get them--have them keep going, not
necessarily on the ordinary drugs and everything, but at least
the money part? Because that is what finances the terrorism.
Mr. Mueller. Well, we are--whenever we have--as I said,
terrorism is our first priority.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. If it relates in some way to----
Senator Hollings. And the money part----
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Financing by narcotics----
Senator Hollings [continuing]. Is the first priority of the
first priority.
Mr. Mueller. First is--we take that as a priority. We
recently did a case in New York where we found that heroin from
Afghanistan was being sold in the United States, distributed in
the United States, and the monies were going back to
Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. And so we address
cases like that, and we have done a number of cases involving
the FARC out of Colombia, where it looks like cocaine monies
were being used to purchase weapons and the like.
I took 400 initially, 400 positions from the drug programs
in a reorganization and reprogramming because I believe that we
had to reorient ourselves, first of all, as an agency before I
came back to either the administration, the Justice Department
or the Congress for additional resources. And in looking at it,
it seemed to me that, first of all, I needed to put our house
in order, focus on our priorities, be absolutely clear on what
our priorities are up and down the line, and then have not only
the FSL, funded staffing level, the manpower directed towards
the priorities, but also the financing.
The process I went through in making those decisions was to
go to the Special Agents in Charge and say, ``What do you need
to do in each of your territory's divisions to address either
perceived counterterrorism, mission or threat in that
division?'' And they came back with various numbers of agents
that they believed they needed, depending on the division.
Now, quite probably, one or more of them came back and
said, ``Well, the Director is going to give us new resources,''
and maybe gave me more numbers than they really actually
needed. So we cut them down and looked at it across the
country, and came up with approximately 500 that the Special
Agents in Charge said, ``We need these numbers in our divisions
to address counterterrorism.''
And I went back to them and said, ``In your divisions, what
are your priorities? What programs would you take these agents
from?'' And coming back, it was 400 that came from the drug
program. And I looked at that and I said, ``Okay. Why are we
taking them from the drug programs?'' And we looked at areas
where we overlapped with the DEA in terms of addressing the
cartels, and we looked at areas where we do standalone drug
cases that increasingly can be done by State and local law
enforcement, standalone methamphetamine case, standalone
marijuana cases.
And what I wished us to remain focused on, are the
organized crime drug enforcement task force cases, the high
intensity drug trafficking areas cases, and those areas where
we bring something special to the table and where we do not
overlap with other Federal agencies or State and local
agencies.
Now, as we go down the path and I hear from State and local
law enforcement, many of them are saying, ``We miss you in the
drug area. We want you back more than you were before,'' and
that is something that I will have to address down the road.
LEGATS
Senator Hollings. Well, as I understand it, Judge Freeh was
putting these Legats out into the different countries as drug
agents, and now I see you have them in Sarajevo, Bosnia,
Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Kabul, Afghanistan, Belgrade, Serbia, that
they have really moved from drugs to counterterrorism. You have
been putting them down in the West Bank. You have put them
somewhere in Beirut. You have put them in Syria. You have put
them in Cairo. You have put them down in Riyadh. When you have
them in Bosnia and Sarajevo, you are still chasing drugs.
Afghanistan, you still--well, I mean, you might find some Al-
Qaeda left there. But look at that, because what we have got to
do is get both, to tell you the truth----
Mr. Mueller. The list----
Senator Hollings [continuing]. Of where the real money is
coming from.
Mr. Mueller. The list that you have read off----
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Are those that we are
requesting----
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Expansion on in those particular
cities. We do have a Legat in Cairo. We have Legats in Riyadh.
We are expanding the Legat in Riyadh and minimizing--or I
should not say minimizing, but cutting back the territory that
was--or for which Riyadh was responsible. So we are adjusting
our Legat distribution to reflect the new challenges of
addressing counterterrorism. Even in South America, where there
may well be enhanced activity from those who are affiliated
with either Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Hamas, our Legats down
there are now finding that they are handling that type of
activity rather than narcotics activity.
And lastly, we do want to put a Legat in Beirut. We have
been discussing that with the State Department for some time.
The State Department has the embassy there, but because of the
threat level, you need to have the personnel working the
embassy in secure compound grounds. They simply do not have
room now. They are anticipating building a new embassy to be
completed in, I think, 2006, and then they will have space for
us. And in the meantime, we are going to be exploring having a
greater presence in Beirut than we currently do.
Senator Hollings. Yes, you have to get to them and tell
them to move somebody out. You cannot wait until 2006.
One final question--Mr. Chairman, you have been very good
to me.
REORGANIZATION
How do you coordinate our--just looking at the breakdown
now that you have in the reorganization of the Bureau itself,
and you have all of this Trilogy and you have all of these
different officers and responsibilities. But where is the
coordination? And how is that working so that you are informed?
We cannot have another Minnesota situation where they kept
calling the Headquarters but somehow it did not get through.
Mr. Mueller. Well, there are actually three ways. The first
way is--every time I speak to groups at the FBI, I say, ``I
want to know the bad news.'' Inevitably, the good news has a
way of reaching the top. It is the bad news that does not.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. When I find that I do not get the news of
those things that are wrong and substantial, I am not happy and
that word has gone out. And so I have tried to change and make
people understand that I would be twice as mad about not
hearing about a mistake than hearing that a mistake was made.
We are going to have to take risks. I want people to be
aggressive investigators.
And people will take risks, and I want them to take risks,
and I do not want them to feel that they will be disciplined
for taking the risk. We all make mistakes; I will make more
than most people in the organization. But I want to hear about
the issues such as what happened in Los Angeles, such as what
happened in Minneapolis.
The second way is by changing the accountability and
responsibility for the national programs. And by that I mean
counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber. Whereas in the
past it would be the field office that was responsible for any
particular case, in those national programs it is the Assistant
Director in charge of counterterrorism that is responsible for
the success or failure of a case. That means that individual
has to know what is going on around the country. The Assistant
Director does not do the investigation but must know about the
investigations. And when it is in counterterrorism, there has
to be direction from the center. There has to be accumulation
of intelligence, analysis of that intelligence, dissemination
of that intelligence, and undertaking operational
responsibilities for that intelligence.
So centralizing responsibility and accountability in those
programs, I think, is going to make a substantial difference
from the way we operated prior to September, prior to September
11th.
And the third way is that I have expanded--thanks to the
approval of my initial reorganization, I have now four
Executive Assistant Directors who have a much smaller span of
control than before. Before September 11th, there were I think
12 Assistant Directors, all reporting to the Deputy Director
and then to me. Now I have a Deputy Director and there are four
Executive Assistant Directors who report to the Director and
the Deputy Director. So the span of control in these various
areas is much more narrow than it was prior to September 11th.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl.
HYDROGEN CYANIDE WEAPONS
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings,
Director Mueller.
Within the past month, the FBI has warned law enforcement
agencies nationwide that terrorists could build a simple but
deadly chemical weapon out of readily available materials.
Specifically, the FBI cited hydrogen cyanide or chlorine gas as
easy-to-make chemical weapons. What is so disturbing is how
easy it is to obtain cyanide. As you know, it is readily
available at chemical supply warehouses, from mail-order
catalogs, and even via the internet.
As you probably know much better than I do, terrorists may
well use cyanide in a future attack. Attorney General Ashcroft
told this subcommittee last week that he would work with us to
prevent terrorists from acquiring this simple chemistry to
launch an attack. We also hope that you can pledge to work with
us to address this concern.
How serious of a threat does the widespread availability of
toxic industrial chemicals like cyanide pose? And what do you
suggest we do? Are you prepared to work with us on some
legislative improvement to the problem?
Mr. Mueller. Well, we sent out a bulletin several weeks ago
relating to a relatively simple explosive device, the schematic
for which we had picked up in one of our searches overseas. It
was to alert State and local law enforcement to be aware of
this potential threat out there.
We have over a period of time received threats about the
possible, the potential use of cyanide in an attack. We have
received threats internationally. Working closely with the CIA,
the FBI has focused on addressing and identifying the expertise
for use of this compound, amongst other types of poisons. We
have also focused on the individuals in Al-Qaeda who may have
that expertise and understanding, and those individuals in Al-
Qaeda that may be participating in a network that would
undertake such an attack utilizing cyanide.
And when we receive the threats relating to use of the
cyanide, we also may see in the same genre threats relating to
the use of ricin, sarin, or other such compounds.
With specific regard to cyanide and its ease of use in the
United States, whenever we have an indication in a case that
there is a potential for the use of cyanide, we utilize every
arrow in our quiver, whether it be Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) intercepts or aerial or individual
surveillance to make certain that we address that threat
immediately.
We also have reached out to the chemical companies, and the
groups that represent chemical companies, to develop a liaison
so we can do a better job in trying to identify misuses of
cyanide compounds within the United States. As you know, it is
very easy to get. It is prevalent--well, I should not say it is
prevalent. But it is not hard to get. You can get it off of the
internet, and we were exploring ways to curtail it, curtail
that.
We actually recently had a prosecution up in--I guess it
was in Chicago, an individual who was--he had not--he was
storing sodium cyanide and potassium cyanide and other toxic
chemicals in passageways under the streets of Chicago. And we
were onto that, we identified it and successfully prosecuted
that individual. So where we find an indication of the use of
cyanide, we investigate it, and we prosecute.
We are working with the chemical industries within the
United States to do more on that. We are certainly willing to
cooperate and work with you in terms of additional legislation
to address that threat.
Lastly, we are working with the CIA and other agencies both
within the United States and outside of the United States, to
address any threats relating to the use of cyanide or any such
compounds that comes from overseas.
CIGARETTE SMUGGLING/TERRORISM FINANCING
Senator Kohl. Within the past month, the FBI has warned--I
am sorry. Recent ATF investigations reveal that tobacco
smugglers are using the profits they make from illegal
operations in the United States to fund terrorist organizations
like Hezbollah among others.
I raised this issue with the Attorney General last week,
and he seemed genuinely interested in helping to tackle this
issue. This is a serious problem that is not getting the
attention I believe that it deserves. It is a funding source
for terrorism. Should the FBI play a role in investigating the
terrorism-related aspect of this problem? Do you agree that
this is a serious terrorism-related concern? And can you pledge
to work with us on finding some remedy for terrorist
organizations which use the legal profits from the tobacco
industry?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, I--we have had several recent cases,
principally Hezbollah, where cigarette smuggling has been one
of the illegal activities engaged in by individuals affiliated
with Hezbollah, to gather monies, of which have been siphoned
off to terrorist organizations overseas.
We had a successful prosecution most recently in North
Carolina in which a number of Hezbollah-associated individuals
were convicted for their actions in cigarette smuggling. We
recently had a case up in, I believe it was Detroit, that we
indicted where there were a number of illegal activities by a
group of individuals again associated with Hezbollah, and the
charges there are racketeering charges.
So we have a number of areas where we have seen this as one
of the illegal activities engaged in principally by those
associated with Hezbollah to gather funds. We are looking at it
individually and through our Joint Terrorism Task Forces, by
addressing the terrorist groups engaged in all types of illegal
activities, including cigarette smuggling, extortion and other
traditional racketeering crimes.
We also have a terrorism financing section that was
established after September 11th in the Counterterrorism
Division, that has been working hard on all means and
mechanisms of the financing of terrorists--not just profits
that come from cigarette smuggling but also from narcotic
trafficking, from extortion, and as well as from non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), charitable organizations. So
that section was established with experts in finance to focus
on the sourcing and the funding of terrorists.
And lastly, I would say we are working hand in glove with
the CIA because most of the terrorism financing does not stop
at our borders. It is integrated with other pockets of
financing overseas, whether it be in the Middle East or in
Europe. And so we are working very closely with our
counterparts and with the CIA to focus on financing, to have a
comprehensive strategy to address terrorism financing around
the globe, of which the financing in the United States is but a
part of it.
Senator Kohl. Thank you for that answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
I think it was Mr. Lowery who was reported to say that
there is going to have to be a number of items in technology
activity that would not be pursued in order to pay for the
Trilogy. That was reported in the Federal Register. I think it
was the Federal Register. Oh, Federal Times.
What would be the items that you would not be pursuing in
order to pay for Trilogy?
Mr. Mueller. That is--he was misquoted.
Senator Gregg. Oh. We have all experienced that.
That is a good answer.
That is a good answer.
Mr. Mueller. It is also the accurate answer.
He was misquoted. As I think we--as I have said before, to
fund $137.7 million, we are taking those funds from a number of
areas that I think we have let you know of. None of them are
from other information technology projects. They are from--let
me see. I know I have it some place here.
We are taking the monies from unobligated balances from the
emergency supplemental, as I know you will--we will probably
discuss at some point; from prior year unobligated balances, as
well as a reallocation of certain funds available in the
current year. And they include some funds that we have set
aside for information technology.
I am tremendously frustrated, was when I first came and
still am, at the fact that our information technology is not
where I want it and need it to be tomorrow and today. I have
come to learn through trial and error that I have to make
certain that when we put pieces in place, that they are well
thought out, that those pieces fit into the overall
architecture and puzzle of the Bureau so that we do not have
these same stovepipes. But there is so much more we could do
with information technology, that every dollar I can get in our
budget that I can put into advances in information technology,
I am looking to put in. Now, that is difficult when I am having
to ramp up the agent strength in our various programs, but
particularly counterterrorism and counterintelligence, but I am
loathe to take monies away from information technology for
anything else.
[The information follows:]
Clarification of Sources of Trilogy Reprogramming
The FBI proposes to fund the $137.9 million needed for
Trilogy from prior year unobligated balances, current year
funds, available information technology funding, and $33
million in excess user fees. The FBI submitted a reprogramming
request to the Department of Justice and the Office of
Management and Budget. The detailed request was transmitted to
Congress on May 21, 2003.
Senator Gregg. Well, I agree with what you say. I think
there is no question that the Department has had an antiquated
technology capability for a long time, the agency, the Bureau.
But the problem that we have seen, especially with the Bureau,
but with other groups that we oversight in this committee, is
that we build these, we make a commitment to move down these
technology roads and then we build them out and we find that we
have made huge errors, and we spend a lot of money. IAFIS was
an example. NCIC was an example. Trilogy as it started was a
classic example. The worst, of course, is the INS, which is in
a category of its own when it comes to having wasted money on
technology. It does not even communicate within the Department.
And so we agree with you, that you need funds for
technology. But our concern is if we give you too much money
too fast, you end up buying stuff that does not work simply to
spend the money and you end up going down roads that lead to
dead ends or do not produce product, that do not create the
integration that you need. So that is our reservation on some
of this.
I think you have done a good job of getting the technology
on the Trilogy back together and up and focused, and that is
great.
I think, though, the same concept, the same fear, at least
as far as my feeling, is with the amount of money that we are
putting into the Bureau. It is coming in very fast, and you are
shifting gears from a national police force to being a
counterterrorism and counterintelligence force. And you are
setting up, as you have to, all sorts of different things very
quickly.
The question is: Are we going to, by giving you this much
money this fast, do you a disservice because you will end up
going down the road of creating activity that 2 years, 3 years
from now we will find out was just a waste?
Mr. Mueller. Well----
Senator Hollings. If you will yield on that point.
I thought when you called about Smith, that you were going
to call about the supplemental and I had the answer that you
had $123 million unobligated. That is what you are talking
about, right?
Mr. Mueller. That is one of the answers.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. Well, let me try to address those----
Senator Gregg. Right, the $320 million is just----
Mr. Mueller. Well, let me try to address those in some form
of order. I think 18 months ago we had very little credibility
in many places up here. And I came to see it because we had not
put into place in my mind the individuals and the structure to
address something that you need outside expertise to advise on.
I think in the world, the FBI Special Agents, I think they are
the best information gatherers in the world, best
investigators.
But when it comes to information technology, when it comes
to financial posterity or financial planning, when it comes to
running a 27,000-employee business, that background does not
easily lend itself to that kind of organizational structure.
And the biggest change I think we have made in the last 18
months is bringing in individuals who have expertise in those
areas. Whether it be Tina Jonas behind me as chief financial
officer (CFO), who is familiar with this particular area, or
Wilson Lowery, who came from IBM where he was part of the team
that was doing re-engineering, or a chief information officer
(CIO) that came from outside, the individuals we brought in I
need to advise me and make certain that we are on the right
track.
And it is not just one person, as I have explained before.
It is somebody who understands the finance; somebody who
understands the technology; somebody who understands the
project and getting the project done on time. All of these are
talents that are specific and unique unto themselves, and you
need all of them to reach the finish line. We have a number of
those talents. We need some more.
The other thing is, for my own sake, I mean, I come in from
having been a prosecutor for a long time. Yes, I ran a criminal
division at the Department of Justice, but I had not run a
27,000-person institution where you needed to transform the
institution and the technology. It has been a learning
experience.
And the one thing I have learned is that if I do not
understand it and do not know and keep track of what is
happening on the information technology side, it is going to go
awry. Even though I am not a CIO, even though I am not a
computer programmer, I do believe in order to transform the
institution, you have to keep track of it from the very top and
force yourself to learn it. And I am responsible ultimately for
the success or failure of that program. I was delighted, as was
everybody else, when we put in the wide area network and it
came in on time.
I will tell you that in October, as I may have mentioned to
you before, we had what I call the ``graybeards'' come in and
sit down with us for 2 days and go through our IT plans. And
these are persons from Sandia Laboratories and elsewhere, and
both Federal Government and outside computer specialists, to
look through what we plan to do. And they came up with two
points.
One is that they said we would have substantial difficulty
putting in the wide area network (WAN), because we were
utilizing switches developed by the intelligence community that
had never been put into a wide area network that size. And so I
had some fear and trepidation that we actually would not get to
the finish line on that, but we did.
The second thing I learned is that--I had assumed that, for
instance, you could put all of the information in a database,
into one database. They came back and said no; for security
reasons, no, keep separate databases.
And so it is a combination of learning as we go along,
having persons responsible for looking at the financial part of
it, and where we are going. Are we spending our dollars
correctly? Do we have the right contractors? Do we have the
right technology? And will this technology put us where we want
to be 5 years down the road?
And these are the issues that I spend a substantial amount
of time on now, because they are so integral to the future of
the Bureau.
Senator Gregg. Well, we appreciate that. And we also spend
a substantial amount of time on that, and do appreciate
communication in that area.
Mr. Mueller. I always am open to suggestions, also. If we
are doing it wrong, I want to know it, and I want to know it
earlier rather than later. And so I am always open to
suggestions as to how we can do it better.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Senator Gregg. As an ancillary issue, you are now setting
up, it appears to me, and which you have to, a whole series of
counterterrorism intelligence task forces. You have TTIC. You
have the foreign terrorism task force. As I understand it,
every field office is going to have an intelligence officer who
is the coordinating individual, which may have been set up
outside without contacting the Congress, which we will need to
discuss, but probably not here.
Are we putting up so many of these groups that we are going
to be back to where we were before 9/11, where there is just
too many people out there doing the same stuff, or relatively
related stuff, but they are not communicating with each other?
Should we put the foreign task force in with the TTIC or----
Mr. Mueller. Well, now, let me address a number of those
issues. What I have tried to do in the Counterterrorism
Division is specialize in certain areas such as finances and
communications. The Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force,
which is database mining for a particular operational mission,
all of those are operational in the sense that they gather
information in a particular area and then will run operations
by that, further investigations in particular areas to identify
terrorists, terrorist financing, terrorist communications, etc.
And I consider those to be operational, and what we need to
develop within the Counterterrorism Division to support the
counterterrorism responsibilities nationwide.
At the same time, I believe we had to enhance the focus on
intelligence within our organization. I take full
responsibility and I apologize for not having done the
reprogramming that should have been done in anticipation of
announcing the selection of an individual to be Executive
Assistant Director for Intelligence. I had an Executive
Assistant Director. It was my naive thought that since I had an
open Executive Assistant Director position, I could put the
person in there and call that person the Executive Assistant
Director for Intelligence, without running it past Congress,
for which I apologize.
And with regard to the intelligence units in each of our
field offices, we have intelligence units scattered around most
of our field offices. And I wanted to make certain that that
becomes an established program down the road. That also I
should have run past you, and we will. But my expectation is
what we will lend to our field offices is the capability of
having an entity there that will be charged with gathering that
intelligence and pushing it up, and as you look at it, I think
you will find it beneficial.
The last issue is: Do we have too many task forces? Do we--
are we----
TERRORIST THREAT INTEGRATION CENTER/FOREIGN TERRORIST TRACKING TASK
FORCE
Senator Gregg. Well, specifically, the Foreign Terrorist
Task Force, why should that not be folded into this TTIC?
Mr. Mueller. Because I believe it is operational--it is
looking at identifying individuals who may fit a particular
match of a terrorist and requires investigation as part of
that.
Now, when you look at what the TTIC is going to be--I
believe in it. I am very supportive of the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center because I believe we need an analytical
center that focuses on terrorist threats, an analytical center
where you have analysts that are pulling the pieces of
information together from the various separate databases with
regard to particular threats. But I do not believe that that
should be operational.
Senator Gregg. All right. That explains that.
Well, let me just say on my behalf and I think I speak for
most of the folks up here: We think you are doing a great job.
You are trying hard, and you are certainly focused. And you are
changing a ship that has been going one way for many years, and
that has got to be done, and it is going fairly well. We are
very impressed with the work you do.
We appreciate the fact that your agents out there are
trying to defend us and make us safe as a country, and we want
to thank them for their service. We know they are working long
hours, and they are out there trying to do something to protect
us. And we appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Hollings. I concur.
conclusion of hearings
Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you very much.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Thursday, April 10, 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 2004
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
[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 2004 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
DEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
THE JUDICIARY
Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Subcommittee:
thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the fiscal year 2004
budget request for the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AO).
Let me first take a moment to thank you for your help in conference
on the fiscal year 2003 appropriation for the AO. I am grateful of your
support in providing the AO with an increase in funding above the
fiscal year 2002 appropriation. Crafting an acceptable conference
agreement within the limited allocation you were provided was a
difficult challenge. Your continued support and recognition of our
service to the courts are very much appreciated.
ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Created by an Act of Congress in 1939, the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts serves as the central support agency for the
federal court system, with key responsibility for judicial
administration, program management, and oversight.
As such, the AO is the focal point for judiciary communication,
information, program leadership, and administrative reform. Our
administrators, accountants, systems engineers, analysts, architects,
lawyers, statisticians, and other staff provide professional services
to meet the needs of judges and staff working in the federal courts
nationwide. We also staff the judiciary's policy-making body, the
Judicial Conference of the United States, and its 24 committees.
SECURITY OF THE JUDICIARY
During this past year, in the wake of the events of September 11,
2001, and the anthrax incidents that followed, a principal focus of the
AO has been to provide additional guidance on security and emergency
preparedness to the courts. We have consulted with experts, analyzed
alternatives, and taken numerous steps to ensure the safety and
security of federal judges, judiciary staff, jurors, attorneys, the
public, and others associated with the judicial process. These efforts
would not have been possible without your support in providing the
judiciary with $129 million in emergency supplemental funding during
fiscal year 2002. I would like to take a few moments to highlight how
we have used these monies as well as share with you some of the
initiatives we have undertaken in the area of security during the last
year.
Emergency Supplemental Funding
First and foremost, the supplemental funding enabled the judiciary
to augment the U.S. Marshals Service's workforce with 106 new court
security inspectors who will oversee courthouse security and coordinate
on- and off-site protection of judges in each of the 94 districts and
12 regional courts of appeals. The funding also covered the costs
associated with 358 new Court Security Officers (CSOs) to provide a
higher level of security, including extended evening and weekend
coverage, enhanced perimeter and internal security patrols, 100 percent
identification checks, and visual inspection of vehicles. The inability
to provide expanded hours of security coverage in courthouses had been
a major weakness in the judiciary's security program. Your assistance
in addressing this need is very much appreciated.
In addition, the supplemental funding is being used to pay for such
things as bomb detection equipment, enhanced x-ray equipment for
screening, bullet-proof vests for CSOs, security enhancements around
the perimeter of courthouses, ballistic hardening of screening posts,
and special security requirements for courts handling high-threat
trials.
We also used emergency supplemental funding to enhance the physical
security of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Monies
have been used to upgrade the fire control system which includes
accessible features for secondary locations. Vehicles no longer are
allowed to park or idle outside the building. We have purchased new
state-of-the-art x-ray machines and video surveillance cameras,
installed protective film on perimeter windows, purchased evacuation
chairs, radiological monitoring devices, and are pursuing other
security upgrades based on expert security advice, and assessment
reports.
Safe Mail Handling
As I mentioned in my testimony before the Subcommittee last year,
immediately following the incidents of anthrax-contaminated mail, the
AO began sending nearly all correspondence to the courts via e-mail or
facsimile transmission. In addition, consultant architectural services
were obtained to study several existing courthouse mail facilities and
handling practices to help develop procedures, standards, and
infrastructure for safe mail handling in federal courthouses. In July
2002, the Judicial Conference endorsed recommendations regarding safe
mail handling procedures, and the construction of centralized mail
rooms in courthouses using $12 million in fiscal year 2002 emergency
supplemental funding. AO staff then developed guidelines and
specifications for prototype mail rooms based on the size of the
courthouse and the potential volume of mail.
Emergency Preparedness
Also during fiscal year 2002, the AO established the Judiciary
Emergency Preparedness Office to give direct guidance and other
assistance to courts for emergency preparedness, crisis response, and
continuity of operations plans. Such plans focus on the safety of
judiciary employees and the public, and ensure that essential functions
and activities are not interrupted for long and that critical functions
resume as quickly as possible. During the past year, representatives
from this office have briefed nearly 2,000 members of the judiciary on
the emergency preparedness program.
Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP)
And, with the help of an independent consultant, prototype
Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) templates and instructional
materials have been developed for each court type based on the actual
COOP plans developed with AO assistance by the courts in New York after
the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Representatives from the
courts contributed to the development of the COOP template by
identifying specific issues courts need to consider in creating their
local plans. The final template was distributed to the courts in
November 2002 and will help them identify vulnerabilities in the event
of a crisis, do the advanced planning necessary to maintain normal
operations, and conduct the extensive coordination required among local
organizations. Courts can access templates and checklists about
emergency preparedness on the judiciary's Emergency Preparedness
Office's website. These templates will be refined and updated based on
experience and feedback from the courts.
Court Operations Support Center
We are particularly grateful for your endorsement in the conference
report of the recommendations of the Court Operations Support Center
and Continuity of Operations Housing Plan report that we provided to
the Subcommittee in November 2002. The establishment of a small leased
facility at least 20 miles outside of Washington, D.C. will help ensure
the continuity of critical court support operations in the event that
administrative and automation support functions are shut down as a
result of closure of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building.
While the primary purpose of the facility will be continuity of
operations, consistent with the conference report direction, we intend
to provide telework opportunities for judiciary employees at this
facility as well. We will work quickly to establish this facility, and
I will keep you apprized of its progress.
Courts Supported in High-Profile Trials
The ongoing terrorist threat to our nation and increased focus of
federal law enforcement resources on homeland security also mean that
the federal courts are likely to be the forum for many more highly
publicized and security-sensitive criminal proceedings. We've already
had the Richard Reid case in Massachusetts and the John Walker Lindh
case in the Eastern District of Virginia. We know of several more that
are upcoming, including the Zacarias Moussaoui case, also in the
Eastern District of Virginia. The courts hosting these trials face
unprecedented and extraordinary challenges involving a wide range of
issues from heightened security concerns, greater information
technology support needs, and furnishing closed-circuit broadcasts of
the proceedings to victims' families.
The courts rely on the AO to provide support and advice to them on
all of these issues. AO staff met with court staff from the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Eastern District of Virginia to
discuss the possibilities of using videoconferencing for emergency
appeals resulting from terrorist-related cases in the circuit. The AO
also arranged for classified briefings from the National Security
Agency (NSA) for judges and others to discuss increased risks from
terrorists trials. In Massachusetts, staff, working with NSA
representatives, conducted an information security analysis at the
district and appellate courts, followed by briefings for court staff
and judges.
I look forward to working with you and the Members of this
Subcommittee as we develop more specific plans to ensure that the
federal courts are safe and readily accessible to the public. Even in
the face of the grim realities of a terrorist attack, chemical or
biological contamination, or natural disaster, we are doing our best to
ensure that the business of the judiciary can and will continue without
disruption.
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
In my role as Secretary to the Judicial Conference, one of my
primary responsibilities is to carry out and implement policy decisions
of the Judicial Conference. Not surprising, providing for the safety
and security of federal judges, judiciary staff, jurors, attorneys and
other participants in the judicial process has always been a top
priority for the judiciary.
On May 5, 1981, Chief Justice Warren Burger met with Attorney
General William French Smith to discuss the need for improved court
security. Following this meeting, in July 1981, Attorney General Smith
formed a task force to examine court security requirements and make
recommendations for improvements. The task force report was issued in
March 1982.
To quote from the Joint Statement of the Chief Justice and the
Attorney General before the Judicial Conference of the United States on
March 11, 1982:
The provisions of adequate security services to all the
participants in the federal judicial system, most especially the
Judiciary itself, is a critical element in the relationship between the
Department of Justice and the Federal Courts. If we cannot ensure the
safety of all participants in the judicial process, we cannot maintain
the integrity of the system, we cannot--in sum--``establish justice,''
as mandated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
The statement goes on to point out that the needs of the judiciary
had risen dramatically due to the increase in the number of judges, the
increase in the number of cases, combined with the increasingly complex
and sensitive nature of the cases and people involved. Mr. Chairman, it
is disturbing to note that twenty-one years later these statements are
even more relevant.
Today, the federal courts are at risk from domestic and
international terrorists, organized domestic and international criminal
organizations, and litigants distressed at the outcome of their
individual cases. And, because of the role the judiciary plays in the
prosecution of international and domestic terrorists, as well as the
high profile of judges and court facilities in most communities,
security threats to the federal judicial system will no doubt continue
to increase.
USMS Staffing Shortfalls
The judiciary is a strong advocate for the resource needs of the
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). But the judiciary has no binding
authority over the general level of security services provided it by
the USMS. By statute, the judiciary depends on the Executive Branch's
USMS as its security provider. This relationship makes it difficult for
us to ensure the judiciary receives the security services it requires.
During the past several years, the U.S. Marshals Service has
experienced severe personnel resource deficiencies, particularly at
courts along the Southwest border and in cities with burgeoning
criminal caseloads. The Marshals Service could not redeploy sufficient
resources to these areas without severely short-changing others. The AO
recently learned that the USMS' budgeting model identified personnel
shortages of approximately 1,200 positions. The USMS is operating at 70
percent of its required staffing. It is critical to the welfare of the
judiciary that the USMS be adequately staffed to perform all of its
various missions so that judicial security does not take a back seat to
other USMS priorities. We are, so to speak, at the mercy of the USMS,
the Department of Justice, and the Office of Management and Budget in
terms of their ability to provide the number of deputy marshals
necessary to ensure the judiciary has a top notch security program.
For more than a year, Judge Jane Roth, Chair of the Judicial
Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, and I have been
working with the Department of Justice and Director Reyna in an attempt
to evaluate the USMS staffing requirements and develop a multi-year
strategy to raise the number of funded marshals. To be frank, achieving
a collaborative effort has not been easy, but the Department has
recently decided to seek input from the judiciary in the development of
a revised staffing formula.
During consideration of the third fiscal year 2002 Emergency
Supplemental, Senator Graham was successful in amending the bill on the
Senate floor to include funding for the hiring of 200 additional deputy
U.S. marshals for the protection of the judiciary. With your help in
conference, $37.9 million was provided to support up to 250 new
positions for the USMS. Unfortunately, certain funds in the Act were
included on a contingent basis--contingent on the President submitting
an official budget request designating those funds as an emergency
requirement. In a letter dated August 6, 2002, I wrote to the President
on behalf of the Judicial Conference to urge expeditious submission of
an official budget request so these critically needed resources could
be released. The President declined to take that action.
For fiscal year 2003, through your leadership in conference on the
Omnibus Appropriations Bill, $7.9 million was included for 58
additional deputy U.S. marshal positions for the protection of the
judiciary for high threat trials, and for districts demonstrating the
highest priority needs. For fiscal year 2004, while the President's
budget for the U.S. Marshals Service seeks $26.6 million for 231
additional deputy U.S. marshal positions, it also includes a general
base reduction of $25.1 million to this same account. I am concerned
that judicial security may suffer as a result.
Comprehensive Study on Judicial Security
As I have tried to lay out before you, the AO and the Judicial
Conference have been concerned with the state of judicial security and
the unique position the judiciary finds itself in with regard to its
dependence on the Department of Justice for some time. Before September
11, 2001, the AO and the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and
Facilities had undertaken a comprehensive look at various aspects of
judicial security. Working with a private security contractor, the
findings of the review were issued in November 2001. Enhancements
funded by the three emergency supplementals and the initiatives that
have been undertaken by the AO to strengthen the security of the courts
were key recommendations contained in this comprehensive review.
In fact, the 106 supervisory-level deputy U.S. marshal positions
included in the emergency supplemental to coordinate judicial security
in the 94 districts and 12 regional circuits were a direct outgrowth of
a recommendation of the independent security experts. Congress has now
transferred the funding to the USMS, Salaries and Expenses account, but
I am grateful that you have included statutory language to ensure the
funding and positions will continue to be assigned to court security.
District marshals and judges have seen improvements in security with
the addition of the new security positions.
In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriation Bill, you have directed the U.S. Marshals Service to
conduct a study with an independent consultant on the management of the
Court Security program and the unique relationship between the Federal
Judiciary, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Protective
Service in administering the Court Security program and providing
facilities security for the judiciary. Mr. Chairman, consistent with
our responsibility to monitor the provision of court security and our
personal concern for the safety of the public, litigants, attorneys,
jurors, judges, court staff and others in the judicial process, I
respectfully urge you to permit the judiciary to share its views
regarding the management of court security during the course of this
study. Certainly the outcome of the study will have profound
implications for the future delivery of judicial security. Judge Jane
Roth and I hope that you will meet with us if you believe changes to
our security arrangements are warranted.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts is $70,584,000, representing an increase of
$7,497,000, or 11.9 percent above the fiscal year 2003 available
appropriation. While the percentage increase we are seeking appears
significant, it should be noted that more than three-fourths of the
requested increase for the AO, $5,842,000, is necessary to support
adjustments to base. These adjustments are mainly comprised of standard
pay and general inflationary increases, funding to replace a lower
level of fee carryover with appropriated funds, and $400,000 to restore
funding for critical cyclical replacement of information technology
equipment that had to be deferred into fiscal year 2004. We are highly
dependent on personal computers, data networks, and telecommunications
to conduct AO business and support the courts. Funds must be available
to ensure security and replacement of essential equipment.
The remaining increase of $1,655,000, which I will describe in
greater detail in a moment, is requested to support new security
requirements, strengthen programmatic oversight, audits, reviews and
assessments, allow us to fund an increase in the transit subsidy
benefit for AO employees, and implement a cafeteria-style flexible
benefit program.
AO Staff Support for the Courts
Specifically, $958,000 is requested to provide nine additional FTEs
for program and security oversight. Continuing to develop new programs
and systems while supporting a court system whose proportional growth
far outpaces that of the AO is a daunting task. The staffing level in
the AO has remained essentially the same over the last ten years, while
court staffing has grown by 20 percent during the same time period,
thus adding substantially to the AO workload.
Each vacancy that occurs is carefully evaluated and used to fulfill
our highest priority needs. Nowhere has this been more evident than
with our increased focus on security and emergency preparedness.
Without additional funding, we have had to shift duties and
responsibilities to meet the most pressing and immediate requirements
of the courts, and this has meant shortchanging other needs. For
example, during fiscal year 2002, the AO devoted $1 million and 8 FTEs
to homeland security efforts. Roughly 50 AO employees devoted staff-
hours equivalent to 8 FTEs, developing and implementing enhanced
judicial security programs--fulfilling responsibilities and carrying
out duties other than those for which their positions were originally
funded to support.
I am proud of my staff and their dedication to serving the needs of
the courts. However, because sufficient resources must be committed to
core functions such as running key systems, providing basic payroll,
personnel, and financial management services, and supporting the
committees of the Judicial Conference, program oversight functions are
in serious need of additional resources.
The nine additional FTEs we are requesting will be applied to the
following functions: adding staff to the facilities and security
program to ensure greater emphasis on the planning aspects of emergency
preparedness and crisis response; providing greater focus and support
to the probation and pretrial services program, which currently has
only 36 AO staff supporting 8,000 probation and pretrial services
personnel in 94 districts nationwide, and a budget of $850 million;
and, increasing program oversight and efficiency reviews to assist the
courts in areas such as automated case management, financial
management, and developing strengthened procurement policies and
procedures.
Mr. Chairman, I hope you can assist us with this much needed
request for additional staffing at the AO.
Cafeteria-Style Flexible Benefits Program
As you may recall, the Judicial Conference is seeking legislation
that would provide the judiciary with the authority to use appropriated
funds and/or fees to help defray the cost of providing supplemental
benefits to judiciary employees. Approval of the legislation will allow
a full-flexible cafeteria plan to be available to all judiciary
employees, including the AO, providing a supplemental benefits package
that is competitive with those already provided throughout the private
sector and state governments. Benefits that may potentially be offered
in a cafeteria plan include such items as a dental program, a vision
program, and life insurance, as well as short-term and long-term
disability insurance.
While the House passed its Federal Courts Improvement Bill with
this needed authorization in it, the Senate failed to act on the
measure during the 107th Congress. However, in anticipation of the
enactment of legislation in fiscal year 2003 allowing flexible
cafeteria-style benefits to be offered to the judiciary, our fiscal
year 2004 request includes $432,000 to begin implementing such a
program for AO employees. A similar request implementing the program
judiciary-wide is included in the Salaries and Expenses account.
Transit Subsidy
Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(Public Law 105-78), the AO implemented a transit subsidy benefit for
its employees with available funding in fiscal year 2000. The benefit
is currently $60 per month with a participation rate of approximately
60 percent. Executive Order No. 13150 provided for an increase in the
allowable benefit to $100 per month in January 2002. The AO is
requesting $265,000 to increase the subsidy to the currently authorized
amount of $100 per month.
The already limited parking available in and around the Thurgood
Marshall Federal Judiciary Building has been further reduced by the
loss of parking spaces at Union Station due to security considerations.
Compounding the situation is the elimination of nearby parking as a
result of the construction of Station Place, which has necessitated
employees of the AO to seek parking in remote locations that are
unsafe. This, coupled with the continuing increase in traffic
congestion in the Washington, D.C. area, has increased AO employee
interest in the transit subsidy program. The requested program increase
of $265,000 will allow us to increase the benefit for AO employees to
the authorized level of $100 per month and cover the cost of an
anticipated increase in the participation rate to 70 percent.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
As I mentioned earlier, the Administrative Office has key
responsibility for judicial administration, program management, and
oversight. It supports the Judicial Conference and its 24 committees in
determining judiciary policies, and develops new methods, systems, and
programs for conducting the business of the federal courts. The AO also
assists the courts in implementing better management practices,
developing and supporting innovative technologies that enhance the
operations of the courts, and collecting and analyzing statistics on
the business of the federal courts for planning and determining
resource needs.
It assists the courts in program management, addressing areas such
as case management, jury administration, defender services, court
interpreting services, and court reporting. One of our major areas of
support is of the probation and pretrial services program for which we
are seeking additional oversight positions. In fiscal year 2002,
probation and pretrial services offices supervised a record number of
offenders and defendants (143,672) living in our communities on
pretrial release, probation, parole, or supervised release. The AO
staff provided policy guidance and program support to a system that
encompasses 94 districts in 500 locations. The staff develop and
administer national contracts for drug testing and electronic
monitoring and help support 500 local purchase orders for substance
abuse and mental health treatment. The AO also provides financial
management services to the judiciary including budget formulation,
execution, and accounting; and personnel and payroll support for 32,000
judiciary employees. It supports the facilities and security needs of
over 800 facilities housing judiciary operations, and conducts
training, audits, and reviews to ensure the continued quality and
integrity of federal court operations.
In addition, the AO provides necessary support services to other
entities including the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Throughout 2002, the AO excelled in its day-to-day
responsibilities. Let me take a moment to highlight just a few of these
areas.
Financial Stewardship
Working with the courts to ensure the efficient and effective use
of resources is a key AO function. It is imperative that we do all in
our power to ensure that the monies appropriated to the judiciary are
utilized prudently; assets and resources are protected from loss,
waste, or abuse; operations are efficient and effective; financial
reports are timely, accurate, and reliable; and business practices
comply with applicable laws and regulations. In 2001, a Management
Oversight and Stewardship Handbook was published and training on
management oversight was provided to chief district judges and chief
bankruptcy judges. In 2002, a companion program was launched for court
executives. The AO has held two of six planned workshops of the new
training program, Management in the Judiciary: The Rules, Tools and
Tips of Good Stewardship. To date, 110 court executives have received
training. The remaining 332 will receive training in fiscal years 2003
and 2004.
Strengthened Internal Controls
Good internal controls are systematic safeguards that ensure
objectives are achieved and assets are protected. With the
participation of court managers, AO staff is developing a model
internal controls handbook to assist court leaders in managing their
courts. The handbook will identify the minimum procedural checks and
balances that should be in place for finance, travel, procurement and
contracting, property, human resources, information technology,
records, and statistical reporting.
Information Technology
Another key responsibility of the AO is developing, implementing,
and supporting new automated systems and technologies for the courts.
One of our largest automation initiatives in recent years is the Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) project, which permits courts
to receive documents over the Internet and maintain electronic case
filings. We began national roll-out of CM/ECF in 2001. By March 2003,
about 130 district and bankruptcy courts had begun or completed
implementing the new systems and national implementation in all courts
should be completed in 2005. More than 27,000 attorneys have already
filed documents electronically and more than 6 million cases involving
more than 15 million documents are in the electronic files systems. In
fact, several recent mega-bankruptcies were filed electronically,
enhancing both public access and case management. In 2002, the total
number of Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) accounts
topped 200,000. These systems will save considerable court resources
while also significantly improving public access to federal court
records.
Many systems have also been developed through the energy and
creativity of AO-court partnerships. Probation and pretrial services
officers who, as I noted earlier, supervise well over 100,000 persons,
have started using the Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case
Tracking System-Electronic Case Management (PACTS-ECM), which in 2002
went live in 17 districts. It is a comprehensive system designed to
help probation and pretrial services officers by making offender case
information more easily accessible. The system electronically
generates, stores, and retrieves investigation and supervision case
information, and provides digital images of offenders. It also has
remote capabilities to allow officer access while in the field. The
PACTS-ECM system is an invaluable resource as the number of offenders
released from Federal prison who are serving terms of supervised
release continues to escalate.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I do not believe that
any one agency in the executive branch or the legislative branch offers
the broad range of services and functions that the AO provides to the
federal courts. However, in the interest of time and the particular
focus of this hearing, I have tried to limit my testimony to our fiscal
year 2004 budget request and the role of the AO in enhancing judicial
security and ensuring the safe and uninterrupted delivery of justice.
We take our responsibilities and service to the courts seriously and
are always looking for ways to improve. I ask your support in
accomplishing this by granting the increase the AO is seeking for
fiscal year 2004. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John G. Heyburn II, Chairman,
Committee on the Budget, Judicial Conference of the United States
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the judiciary's
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Before addressing our fiscal year 2004 request, on behalf of the
entire judiciary, I want to express our appreciation for the funding
levels provided to the judiciary for fiscal year 2003. We understand
the difficult decisions and concerns that you faced, and will continue
to face, balancing the needs of the newly-established Department of
Homeland Security, the ongoing war against terrorism, the war in Iraq,
and the funding needs of numerous domestic entities, while trying to
hold down spending. Although we did not get all the funding we
requested, we are very grateful that you and your dedicated staff
worked with us to fund the judiciary's most pressing needs.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
The budget request the judiciary has submitted for fiscal year 2004
is that which is necessary to maintain our current staff and operations
and to allow the courts to handle growing workload and other critical
needs. The appropriations request is 10.8 percent over the available
appropriations for fiscal year 2003. We realize that this request is
higher than the 3.8 percent increase requested for discretionary
spending, with the exception of homeland security, in the President's
Budget. Although we are mindful of the need for fiscal restraint, now
more than ever a strong judiciary is critical to the protection of our
citizens. Threats to homeland security potentially involve civil or
criminal actions that will require court orders and adjudication in
this nation's courts.
For all judiciary accounts, we are requesting a $530 million
increase in appropriations over the enacted appropriations for fiscal
year 2003. Nearly two-thirds of this requested increase ($338 million)
is required to maintain current operations with pay and benefit
adjustments, inflationary adjustments, increases in GSA space rental
costs, an increase in filled Article III judgeships, and continued
security measures. The remainder ($192 million) is primarily to provide
for the programmatic and workload-related needs such as high-profile
terrorist trials, the unprecedented numbers of bankruptcy filings, and
significant increases in the probation and pretrial services workload
as criminal filings continue to rise and as the number of offenders
released from prisons into our communities with a need for drug and
mental health treatment steadily increases. A detailed explanation of
our fiscal year 2004 request is included as an appendix.
PROTECTION OF FREEDOM
In these uncertain times, with our nation's safety and freedom
threatened as it has never been before, our three branches of
government must work together to protect the safety of our citizens and
our heritage of freedom. A strong, independent federal judiciary,
providing equal justice to all, is at the heart of what this nation
stands for. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in his 2002 year-end
report on the federal judiciary, there is a fundamental interdependence
of our three separate branches of government when it comes to funding
our nation's priorities, and we look to the Legislative and Executive
Branches for support, funding and staffing.
WORKLOAD INCREASES
The workload asked of the judiciary is truly uncontrollable,
whether it is processing criminal, civil, or bankruptcy cases; or
providing jury services, supervision and treatment of defendants and
released felons, or representation to those financially unable to
obtain private counsel. The judiciary has no major program which can be
cut or deferred, only the people who provide those services, the
systems that support them, and the facilities that house them.
Therefore, when funding is reduced, the only place the reduction can be
taken is in the staff and the supporting systems that perform those
essential services.
While we are not at a point where I would use the term crisis, I am
very concerned about certain workload indicators that I believe are
heading in the wrong direction, likely as a result of resource
shortfalls.
Pending criminal and bankruptcy cases have grown by 38 percent and
17 percent respectively between 1998 and 2002. This means that the
number of cases terminated is less than the number of new cases filed.
The number of judges and court staff has not kept pace with the growth
in caseload, and a disturbing argument could be made that this lack of
judicial resources has resulted in a growth in backlogs.
I am also concerned about our law enforcement function, probation
and pretrial services. The caseload in these offices has grown by
approximately 16 percent between 1998 and 2002. That in itself is
significant, but in addition, the nature of their work has also
changed. Officers are supervising more hardened offenders as evidenced
by their more extensive criminal histories and the 67 percent increase
in the average prison sentence. Furthermore, over this same time period
the number of offenders with mental health conditions has grown by 81
percent, and the number with substance abuse problems has grown by 48
percent. While the number of officers has kept pace with the growth in
the overall number of cases during this period, there has been no
increase associated with the increased risk presented by these cases.
Within the same relative level of staffing, our probation and pretrial
services officers must devote a higher level of supervision to the more
hardened criminals and those with drug abuse and mental health issues,
which means they must devote less time to their other cases. On the one
hand, I applaud them for prioritizing limited resources to the more
complex cases, but on the other hand, I am concerned that the level of
supervision of their other cases could pose a higher risk to the
community in the long run.
The courts experienced record workload increases in fiscal year
2002. Bankruptcy filings grew 8 percent, civil filings in the U.S.
district courts climbed 10 percent, criminal cases rose 7 percent, and
the number of persons under probation supervision and supervised
release as well as the defendants in the pretrial services systems each
increased by 4 percent.
As we look to what the future will bring, we note that in
Conference report on the fiscal year 2003 appropriations, additional
funds were provided to the U.S. Attorneys ``to aggressively prosecute
cases of corporate fraud'' and the funding provided to the FBI included
increases to combat violent crime and white collar crime. And, the
Bureau of Prisons inmate population has reached an all-time high of
165,000. Approximately 80 percent of these prisoners will be released
to the community and will be under the supervision of probation
officers at the completion of their sentences.
These are just a few of the indicators that point to continued
increases in workload for the federal judiciary. In fiscal year 2003,
because of limited funding, we will be unable to provide for the full
complement of staffing required to meet the workload requirements. I
urge the Subcommittee, as you determine your funding priorities in this
constrained environment, to consider providing the federal courts with
the resources required to perform the very important functions assigned
to them by the Constitution and the Congress. Without the funding
increases needed to address growing workload, I believe the judicial
system, and those who depend on it to resolve disputes, will begin to
suffer.
JUDICIAL PAY
The need to increase judicial pay continues to be one of the most
pressing issues facing the judiciary. Federal judicial salaries have
lost 23.5 percent of their purchasing power since 1969, while during
this same time period private sector wages have increased by 17.5
percent. More than 70 Article III judges, all of whom have life-time
appointments, left the bench between 1990 and February 28, 2003--either
under the retirement statute if eligible or simply resigning--as did a
number of bankruptcy and magistrate judges. Another judge resigned at
the end of February, and two more judges have announced their intention
to retire from federal bench later this year. During the 1960s only a
handful of Article III judges retired or resigned. Many judges no
longer take senior status and we are losing their valuable
contributions as they seek private sector employment and compensation.
A study of 1999 data indicated that senior judges participated in 15
percent of appeals and presided over nearly 20 percent of trials.
Recently, the report of the National Commission on the Public
Service, also called the Volcker Commission, supported the need to
address this issue. In its final report, the Commission said, ``The lag
in judicial salaries has gone on too long, and the potential for
diminished quality in American jurisprudence is now too large. Too many
of America's best lawyers have declined judicial appointments.'' The
salary differential when compared with the legal education profession
has become quite dramatic. In 1969, the salaries of district court
judges had just been raised to $40,000 while the salary of the dean of
Harvard Law School was $33,000 and that of an average senior professor
at the school was $28,000. That relationship has now been erased. The
salaries of professors and deans at the twenty-five law schools ranked
highest in the annual U.S. News and World Report survey found that the
average salary for deans of those schools was $301,639. The average
base salary for full professors at those law schools was $209,571, with
summer research and teaching supplements typically ranging between
$33,000 and $80,000. This compares with a district court judge's salary
of $154,700. The Volcker Commission's report stated, ``Judicial
salaries are the most egregious example of the failure of federal
compensation policies. . . . Unless this is revised soon, the American
people will pay a high price for the low salaries we impose on the men
and women in whom we invest responsibility for the dispensation of
justice''. The Commission expressed similar concerns about the
inadequacy of congressional and executive salaries and recommended,
``Congress should grant an immediate and significant increase in
judicial, executive, and legislative salaries to ensure a reasonable
relationship to other professional opportunities.''
I know that to address this issue requires a broad Congressional
consensus. Nevertheless, this Committee can take a small, but vital
step in the right direction by including the funding for the annual ECI
adjustment for judges in this bill.
NEW JUDGESHIPS
Despite the substantial increase in workload, there has not been a
major judgeship bill creating additional Article III judges since 1990
or a bankruptcy judgeship bill since 1992. We are grateful for nine
district judgeships added in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the
ten additional district judgeships added in the fiscal year 2001
appropriation, and the 15 additional permanent and temporary district
judgeships Congress authorized in November 2002 as part of the
Department of Justice authorization act. However, the need for
additional appellate, district and bankruptcy judges is critical. For
example, in 1992, when the last bankruptcy judgeships were created,
each bankruptcy judge handled an average of 2,998 cases; each now
handles an average of 4,777 cases. Likewise, appellate and district
judges are handling more cases. We hope that you will support and
provide funding for the Judicial Conference requests to create 57
additional Article III judgeships and 36 bankruptcy judgeships.
COURT SUPPORT STAFF
The court support staff are the backbone of court operations. From
intake to disposition, it is the clerk's staff, along with the pretrial
services and probation officers who keep the wheels of justice running
smoothly. In order to ensure that resources are distributed as required
by workload, the judiciary has developed scientifically-derived
staffing formulas to construct the budget request and to allocate funds
to the clerks' offices and to the probation and pretrial services
offices. As filings and other workload factors fluctuate from year to
year, the application of the formulas to the individual court units
provides a corresponding increase or decrease in funding. This ensures
the equitable allocation of resources to meet workload requirements.
For the duration of the Continuing Resolutions this year, the
clerks' offices and probation and pretrial services offices were held
to a spending level significantly below the fiscal year 2002
allotments, which put a major strain on the staffs. Most offices were
unable to fill critical vacancies, and were anticipating the
possibility of RIFs and furloughs. We are grateful for the fiscal year
2003 appropriation, which will allow the courts the funding necessary
to maintain a current services level of operations for the remainder of
the year. However, it will not allow us to fully fund the formulas that
provide for the staff necessary to keep pace with steadily growing
workload. The gap between required staff levels and funded staff levels
continues to grow.
PROBATION AND PRETRIAL SERVICES
Federal probation and pretrial services officers protect the public
through the investigation and supervision of defendants and released
offenders within the federal criminal justice system. Pretrial services
officers investigate the backgrounds of defendants charged with a
federal crime, recommend in a report to the court whether to release or
detain a defendant, and supervise those who are released to the
community while they await their day in court. The probation officer
enters the scene upon a finding of guilt, investigating the offender to
provide the court with a presentence report, and supervising all
offenders conditionally released to the community. As an example of the
dedication of these officers and the difference they make in our
communities I would like to tell you a success story that took place in
the Eastern District of Virginia.
``JB'' began his three-year term of supervised release after
serving time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North
Carolina on a conviction for making bomb threats. He had a long-
standing history of mental health problems characterized by anger,
suspicion, paranoia, and aggressiveness. The FBI, the local police
department, and JB's former employer--the target of JB's bomb threats--
were extremely anxious about JB's release because of his unstable
mental condition.
Supervision in this case became difficult even before release. JB's
request to relocate to his hometown in the Middle District of North
Carolina was turned down because he had sent numerous threatening
letters to his parents. With no acceptable release plan, he was to be
released to Richmond--where he had no ties and where his former
workplace was located.
A senior Probation Officer (PO) in Virginia Eastern initiated
contact with JB before he was released. She established and maintained
contacts with local law enforcement, corporate security for the victim,
and the probation office in the Middle District of North Carolina. She
found JB temporary housing and placed him in treatment. She also began
a close collaboration with the Richmond Behavioral and Health
Authority, where JB was to participate in a program for homeless people
in need of mental health treatment. This community resource provided
the medication and treatment necessary to stabilize JB's mental
condition and helped him with housing and job placement.
The PO met with JB within 30 minutes of his release from custody.
She conducted a thorough initial interview and gave him clear, detailed
instructions as to what he was to do next. After that first contact,
the PO closely monitored JB, speaking with him by telephone daily, when
necessary. With each change of residence or job, the PO made a prompt
on-site inspection and added new landlords and employers to her list of
collateral contacts.
Because the PO monitored JB's case very closely, she was able to
identify potential danger signals and intervene quickly before a crisis
arose, and to clarify what she expected of JB in each change of
circumstance. She reinforced her expectations of him by using a blend
of explanations, warnings, and incentives. For example, when JB took up
photography as a hobby, the PO first set clear limits for this
potentially intrusive activity. She then both monitored JB's work and
complimented his growing skill. The PO also helped JB deal with the
requirements of managing an independent life--serving as case manager
and service broker with mental health counselors, employers, landlords,
Social Security Administration officials, and family members. She
encouraged JB in his successes and consoled him in his disappointments,
while--within the bounds of confidentiality--also keeping her law
enforcement and corporate security contacts informed of his activities
and progress.
As a result of these efforts, JB got a job at a local YMCA, where
he became a productive, well-liked employee and served as their
unofficial photographer. He became stabilized on medication and began
receiving monthly social security disability benefits. JB occasionally
visited his hometown, under the supervision of the North Carolina
Middle probation office, and his relationship with his family improved
so much that the district accepted him for courtesy supervision.
When JB ended his term of supervised release, he was stable, back
in his hometown with his family, equipped with a new skill, and able to
support himself. The PO and the collateral network she developed
provided the structure, control, treatment, and support necessary for
JB to succeed and for the public to remain safe. Her efforts laid the
foundation for JB's continued success in the future.
Helping past offenders avoid becoming repeat offenders, while
protecting the community, is the primary goal of supervision. With
insufficient staffing resources and limited funds for programs that
help offenders become productive members of our communities, we
increase the risk to those communities.
Persons under supervision have increased by 16 percent since 1998.
More growth is expected for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Further, the
level of danger posed by many of those under supervision and their
attendant drug and mental health problems has soared.
DEFENDER SERVICES
Defender Services is also affected by the increase in criminal
cases and the number of terrorist trials. In addition to the projected
growth in representations in fiscal year 2004, the current projections
for fiscal year 2003 exceed the funding provided. This means that some
panel attorney payments likely will have to be deferred into fiscal
year 2004, further raising the requirements for that year.
We are grateful for the panel attorney rate increase to $90 per
hour provided in fiscal year 2002. This was the first significant raise
in private panel attorney hourly rates in most judicial districts since
1986, and it was badly needed. The judiciary is collecting information
in response to the Committee's questions about the extent to which the
new rate has solved problems in obtaining adequate counsel for Criminal
Justice Act (CJA) representation. However, even in a district where the
$90 rate may now allow a court to obtain qualified counsel to accept
CJA appointments, lawyers are accepting the cases at a significant
financial sacrifice which ultimately will not bode well for the
criminal justice system.
To ensure that the panel rates do not further decline, in real
terms, below the rates envisioned by the CJA, the Judicial Conference
again has requested that the Congress raise the rate to $113 per hour.
Even at $113 per hour, CJA counsel, who provide representation
guaranteed by our Constitution, would be underpaid compared to rates
paid by many federal agencies to private lawyers. In a survey of hourly
rates paid to private counsel by government agencies conducted in 2001,
the General Accounting Office found that the average hourly fees paid
to private counsel ranged from $125 to $357, depending on the agency
and the type of legal services. In addition, the average hourly billing
rate charged by privately retained counsel, according to The 2002 Small
Law Firm Economic Survey (Altman Weil, Inc.), is approximately $190 for
sole practitioners and partners in small law firms. The judiciary and
panel attorneys understand that CJA hourly rates were not intended to
match those that lawyers charge their private clients. It is the
judiciary's view that panel attorneys' compensation should cover
reasonable overhead and a fair hourly fee, which warrants raising the
CJA rate to $113.
In deciding to continue to seek a nationwide $113 hourly rate for
fiscal year 2004, the judiciary considered the possibility of proposing
geographic-based rates. In addition to the reasons supporting a $113
rate, the judiciary took note of several factors regarding geographic-
based rates, including that the cost of living in an area is not the
only factor in a court's ability to recruit and retain qualified
attorneys to accept CJA appointments. For example, in a low-cost rural
area where there is a minimal retained federal criminal practice and a
limited pool of lawyers with federal criminal defense experience, a
higher rate may be needed in order to provide sufficient incentive for
attorneys to invest the time required to develop the necessary
expertise and to then be willing to take on a substantial portion of
the CJA caseload. The judiciary will continue to examine options, such
as geographic-based rates, in developing its future funding requests.
We are also requesting, for the first time, an increase in the
maximum hourly rate to $157 for panel attorney compensation in capital
cases. The $157 hourly rate represents the $125 rate adjusted for the
cumulative cost-of-living adjustments provided for in the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Counsel accepting appointments
to capital cases typically are sole practitioners or are from small,
independent firms, which do not have other attorneys willing or able to
subsidize the cost of the CJA work. The amount of time that the
attorneys need to devote to these capital cases is so extensive that it
is generally impossible for the attorneys to handle other cases
concurrently. The current maximum capital hourly rate of $125 is
significantly below the market rates charged by lawyers for providing
representation in comparable high-stakes, complex, and time-consuming
cases. An increase would be the first in the maximum rate for capital
cases since it was set statutorily in 1996. The cost of this increase
is only $2.9 million. We urge you to consider it.
COURT SECURITY
We appreciate your continued support of our Court Security program
and understand your concerns regarding budget administration and
oversight of the program. This is a unique account--appropriated to the
judiciary but primarily managed by the Department of Justice. The
safety of the public, litigants, attorneys, jurors, judges, court staff
and others in the judicial process is of primary concern to us, and we
are fully committed to working with the USMS to make sure that the
program is successful and that the resources you provide are managed in
the most efficient and effective manner. You have directed the USMS to
conduct a study on the management of this program, and we respectfully
ask that the judiciary be involved actively in this study since the
mission of the program is so important to us.
In these troubled times when courthouses are such visible targets
for terrorists, our Court Security program is more critical than ever.
Court Security Officers (CSO) and security systems are key aspects in
providing physical security to the courts. Statistical data provided by
the USMS indicates that our security process detected 641,489 weapons
such as guns, knives, and other items prohibited in courthouses in
fiscal year 2002. The USMS also reported the detention or arrest of 16
persons related to security breaches in courthouses during the year. I
will share with you a few stories illustrating the vigilance and
professionalism of our CSOs.
In October of 2002, in the district of Colorado, a CSO intercepted
an individual attempting to gain entrance into the courthouse with a
.380 caliber automatic handgun concealed in a leather carrying case.
The individual was also in possession of a loaded magazine. The
individual was taken into custody.
In December of 2001 in the Federal Courthouse and Post Office in El
Dorado, Arkansas, two CSOs noticed a man in the Post Office lobby with
a gun and badge. Although it is a reasonably large city, one of the
CSOs recognized this man as an individual who some years before had
been in court for a civil charge and was considered to have mental
health problems. The two CSOs approached him and had to fight him to
the floor. The individual had a fake badge and a real gun. He was
apprehended, charged and found guilty of several charges including
carrying a weapon into a federal building.
In February of 2002, an individual used a hammer to shatter the
glass in the front entrance door of the U.S. Federal Building at
Beckley, West Virginia. Two CSOs quickly subdued this individual and
restrained him until he was taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals
Service.
During a court session in the Southern District of Ohio a prisoner
attempted escape. The prisoner was able to get out of the courtroom and
almost out the front door, but two CSOs tackled and apprehended him at
the front entrance.
We appreciate your increased support and funding for this program.
While we recognize the practical reasons for transferring the 106
supervisory deputy marshal positions, approved by Congress in the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation, to the USMS in fiscal year
2003, these positions are a linchpin to effective security of our
courthouses, and we look for your support to ensure that they will
continue to be dedicated to courthouse security, and to our
participation in the study on the management of the Court Security
program.
CAFETERIA-STYLE EMPLOYEES BENEFITS PROGRAM
For the past several years, the judiciary has been a leader in
offering enhanced benefits to employees. Long-term care was introduced
in 1999, followed by the existing flexible benefits plan, introduced in
fiscal year 2000, which offers pre-tax benefits such as flexible
spending accounts for health care, dependent care, payment of health
insurance premiums, and commuter reimbursement. The judiciary was able
to implement these benefits within the existing statutory framework and
without requiring additional funds. We would like to do more for our
employees to stay competitive in an era when skilled workers change
jobs frequently. This is especially important to the judiciary as the
work force of tempered professionals reaches retirement age and we are
looking to maintain a qualified, stable work force. We cannot continue
to be competitive in the employment market with substandard benefits,
and so we are seeking legislation and funding to establish a cafeteria-
style benefits program that would be funded in part by a modest per-
employee contribution by the judiciary. The combined employee and
employer contributions could eventually be used to purchase benefits
from a menu of choices such as dental insurance, vision insurance,
leave conversion, expanded commuter subsidies, short-term and long-term
disability, and prescription drug insurance and mental health insurance
to plug gaps in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) programs.
Benefit programs like these are common in state governments, the
private sector, and other federal agencies such as the Federal Reserve,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Comptroller of the Currency and
the Postal Service--entities with which we compete for professional
staff.
Although the House passed the Federal Courts Improvement Bill with
the needed authorization allowing us to use appropriated funds and/or
fees to help defray the cost of providing these supplemental benefits,
the Senate failed to act on the measure during the 107th Congress.
However, in anticipation of the enactment of legislation in fiscal year
2003 allowing flexible cafeteria-style benefits to be offered in the
judiciary, we are including a request for $15.9 million, hoping to
begin implementing the program in fiscal year 2004.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts serves as the
central support agency for the federal courts, with key responsibility
for judicial administration, policy implementation, program management,
and oversight. The Administrative Office (AO) not only performs
important administrative functions such as personnel, payroll,
procurement, space management and planning, and accounting, but also
provides a broad range of legal, financial, management, program, and
information technology services to the courts. The AO's staff has been
essentially frozen for ten years, while its work has expanded to
support the courts.
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11 and the anthrax
mail situation, the AO has been working to provide additional guidance
on security and emergency preparedness to the courts. The Director
established a permanent Judiciary Emergency Preparedness Office to
focus on crisis response, occupant emergency planning, and continuity
of operations planning. Following the anthrax mail contamination
crisis, the AO provided advice and contract support to test for anthrax
and address mail handling concerns at courts across the nation. To
avoid future contaminated mailings, the AO began using e-mail
broadcasts, facsimile transmissions, and more extensive posting to our
intranet site, the J-Net, to deliver information to the courts.
With the help of an independent consultant, prototype Continuity of
Operation Plan (COOP) templates and instructional materials have been
developed for each court type based on the actual COOP plans for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the District and
Bankruptcy Courts for the Southern District of New York. Templates and
checklists about emergency preparedness have been made available on the
Emergency Preparedness Office's J-Net website.
The Director created a project team to assess the feasibility of
establishing a Court Operation Support Center (COSC) outside downtown
Washington, DC to address the vulnerability of key administrative and
technical support to the courts. The primary objective of an off-site
COSC is to ensure that support to the courts would continue
uninterrupted in the event the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary
Building is rendered inaccessible. We intend to provide telework
opportunities for judiciary employees at this facility as well. We are
grateful for your endorsement of the COSC in the conference report on
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations.
As courts are facing more highly publicized and security-sensitive
criminal proceedings, the AO has been providing support and advice to
the courts on a wide range of issues from heightened security concerns
to information technology, and furnishing closed-circuit broadcasts of
the proceedings to victims' families.
Working with the courts to ensure the efficient and effective use
of resources is a key AO function. In fiscal year 2001, a Management
Oversight and Stewardship Handbook was published and training on
management oversight was provided to chief district judges and chief
bankruptcy judges. In 2002, a companion program was launched for court
executives. The AO has held two of the six planned workshops of the new
training program, Management in the Judiciary: The Rules, Tools and
Tips of Good Stewardship.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the AO is $70,584,000,
representing an increase of $7,497,000, or 11.9 percent above the
fiscal year 2003 available appropriation. More than three-fourths of
the requested increase is necessary to support adjustments to base,
mainly standard pay and general inflationary increases, as well as
funding to replace a lower level of fee carryover with appropriated
funds. Of the remaining $1,655,000 increase, $958,000 is requested to
provide nine additional FTE for program and security oversight. The
staffing level in the AO has remained essentially the same over the
last ten years, while court staffing has grown by 15 percent during the
same time period.
I urge the Committee to fund fully the AO's budget request. The
increase in funding will ensure that the AO continues to provide
program leadership and administrative support to the courts, and to
lead the efforts for them to operate efficiently.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
The Federal Judicial Center is seeking a modest 8.3 percent
increase over its current appropriation. The Center is the federal
judiciary's education and research arm. Its support is vital to the
work of federal judges and the personnel of the courts.
Judge Smith will return to California later this year to resume her
duties as a U.S. district judge. All of us in the judiciary are
grateful to her and to the Center for its contributions under her four
years of leadership.
With Judge Smith, I thank you for last year's increase for the
Center, including the confirmation that the funds transferred in 2002
are part of its base budget and available to support some of the
distance education positions that it has requested for several years.
A main element of the increase that the Center seeks in 2004 would
restore its basic judicial education programs to a twelve-month cycle,
rather than the current eighteen-month cycle. Having to go a year and a
half between continuing education programs has been a matter of great
concern to judges over the country. These programs provide updates on
caselaw trends, on innovations in managing cases, and on such
specialized topics as admissibility of scientific evidence.
Furthermore, we can share notes with colleagues from other courts as
well as with the excellent faculty that the Center assembles.
I want also to recognize the importance of the Center's research,
primarily for committees of the Judicial Conference, as detailed in
Judge Smith's statement, and the Center's education to enhance
management skills in the federal courts. I participated last fall in a
Center program for new chief judges and unit executives, and it has
helped me immensely. Center programs also provide a forum to stress the
importance of economy in administration, which I did earlier this week
when speaking at a Center conference for the clerks and chief deputies
of the courts of appeals and the clerks of the bankruptcy appellate
panels. Last October I provided similar guidance on fiscal realities
and responsibility when making a presentation at a Center workshop for
the clerks and chief deputies of our federal district courts.
Center programs for our clerk's offices and our probation, and
pretrial services offices, almost all of it by satellite and on the
Web, has never been more important for court executives who must deal
with employee unease and insecurity in these troubled times. Its
importance highlights the need for the educational technology positions
the Center requests.
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 as you work to develop
the fiscal year 2004 appropriation bill for the Judiciary.
Appendix
SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2004 appropriation request for the Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
$5,175,878,000, an increase of $540,200,000, or 11.7 percent, over the
fiscal year 2003 available appropriations. 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 2004
is only $429,435,000 or 8.5 percent.
Of the $540,200,000 increase in appropriations, 66 percent
($357,481,000) is adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 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 2004. The remaining 34 percent ($182,719,000) 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 $4,467,930,000 in obligations is required for
this account, including funding for the Vaccine Injury program, in
fiscal year 2004. Funding totaling $276,285,000 is expected to be
available from other sources including fee collections and carryforward
balances to fund S&E requirements. This leaves an appropriation need of
$4,191,645,000, which is $411,864,000 above the fiscal year 2003
available appropriation.
Of the $411,864,000 increase, 61 percent ($249,697,000) is needed
to fund adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 base including: pay and
benefit increases for judges ($12,563,000); increases in the number of
filled Article III judges, senior judges, magistrates judges
adjustments, and the filling of vacant Special Masters to handle
vaccine injury cases ($13,725,000); pay and benefit increases for court
support and probation and pretrial services staff ($95,327,000);
increases necessary to maintain fiscal year 2003 staffing levels and
automation support because of a reduction in non-appropriated funding
($30,571,000); increases for space rental and associated costs
($60,084,000); inflationary increases for operating costs
($12,339,000); increases to support existing and newly installed
automated systems and to continue development of new information
technology systems ($17,934,000); and increases for maintenance of
telecommunications systems and systems for new space coming on-line
($7,154,000).
The remaining 39 percent ($162,167,000) will fund 10 additional
magistrate judges and their staff to help Article III judges handle the
growing volume of civil and criminal cases facing the courts
($4,119,000); 807 court support FTEs to address the shortfall in the
level of staffing and operating costs funded in fiscal year 2003
($97,025,000); 427 court support FTEs for a net increase in workload in
fiscal year 2004 ($28,200,000); a cafeteria-style flexible benefits
program for employees to reduce turnover and attract high quality new
hires ($15,886,000); increased mental health and substance abuse
treatment for projected growth in the number of offenders and
defendants under supervision requiring this treatment ($7,369,000);
annual recurring costs of the judiciary's off-site operations support
center ($3,495,000); additional funding for the installation of
courtroom audio systems during the construction of new courthouses
($4,384,000); and funding for background investigations for probation
and pretrial services officers and officer assistants, and for court
staff in sensitive positions ($1,689,000).
Defender Services
An appropriation of $635,481,000 is required for the Defender
Services program to provide representation for eligible criminal
defendants in fiscal year 2004. This is an increase of $100,520,000
above the available fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
Of this increase, 86 percent ($86,909,000) is needed for
adjustments to the fiscal year 2003 base for inflationary and workload
increases. Included in these adjustments are standard pay and inflation
increases for Federal Defender Organizations ($14,002,000); a cost-of-
living adjustment for panel attorneys ($1,247,000); other inflationary
increases ($2,149,000); increase in the projected number of
representations ($36,923,000); funding to maintain base caseload costs
($33,188,000); and a reduction in non-recurring costs (-$600,000).
The remaining increase of 14 percent ($13,611,000) will fund an
increase in the hourly panel attorney rate for non-capital cases, above
the inflationary adjustment, to $113 beginning on April 1, 2004
($10,378,000); an increase in the hourly panel attorney rate for
capital cases, beyond the inflationary increase requested, to $157
effective on April 1, 2004 ($2,633,000); and start-up costs of two new
federal defender offices expected to be opened in fiscal year 2004
($600,000). 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 $53,181,000 is
required, a decline of $1,100,000 from the fiscal year 2003 available
appropriation. This decline is the result of a decrease in the
projected number of juror days (-$1,447,000); and an increase for
inflation ($347,000).
Court Security
For the Court Security program, an appropriation of $295,571,000 is
required, which is an increase of $28,916,000 above the fiscal year
2003 available appropriation. Of this increase, 76 percent
($21,975,000) is for adjustments to base including: an increase for
standard pay, benefit and contractual services inflation ($13,237,000);
an increase to annualize the costs for 10 new court security officers
(CSOs) partially funded in fiscal year 2003 ($290,000); non-pay
inflationary increases ($303,000); an increase of 26 court security
officers for new or existing courthouse space ($980,000); and an
increase for the cyclical replacement of security systems and equipment
($7,165,000).
The remaining increase of 24 percent ($6,941,000) will fund
security systems and equipment for perimeter security, CSO radio
repeater installations, and systems in probation and pretrial services
offices ($6,072,000); CSO orientation training and contracting officer
training for staff who administer the CSO contract ($550,000); and four
additional FTE to administer the Court Security Program at the U.S.
Marshals Service to improve program oversight and administration
($319,000).
______
Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, United States
Court of International Trade
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Subcommittee:
thank you once again 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 2004 is $14,206,000,
which is $519,000 or 3.8 percent over the fiscal year 2003 enacted
appropriation of $13,687,000 and an increase of $597,000 or 4.4 percent
over the level after the rescission imposed by Congress. This request
will enable the Court to maintain current services and provide for
standard pay and other inflationary adjustments to base. The Court's
budget request included a small program increase of $50,000 to upgrade
its security recording system to a digital system that will increase
the accuracy and reliability of its current system, while, at the same
time enhancing its internal and external surveillance capabilities. The
requested increase, however, was included in the recently enacted
Wartime Supplemental Appropriation Bill and will allow us to move
forward with this security upgrade during fiscal year 2003. The Court
continues, as it has done for the past nine years, to hold its
requested budget increases below 6 percent.
In response to several studies conducted by GSA and the U.S.
Marshals Service, and in the wake of September 11th, the Court, in
fiscal year 2002, requested and received funds for an architectural
analysis of the structure of the Courthouse in order to determine the
vulnerability of the facility in case of a bomb blast and/or a
terrorist attack. As a result of this analysis, the Court, using other
funds from its fiscal year 2002 appropriation, asked the contractor for
recommendations as to the feasibility of modifying the existing
building in a manner that would ensure the health, security and
effective operation of the Court. The contractor's final report was
completed at the beginning of fiscal year 2003. Specific
recommendations were made that would make the courthouse less
vulnerable and safer for the Judges, the employees and the public. The
Court is working closely with all relevant agencies to obtain
appropriate funding for the implementation of the needed modifications
to the building.
In accordance with its Long Range Plan, the Court continues to
upgrade its technology infrastructure and expand staff development
programs in the areas of technology and job related skills without
requesting additional funds. The Court is in the process of completing
the implementation of a customized version of the Federal Judiciary's
Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF.) System and the related
file tracking, scanning and indexing solutions. The upgrading of the
wiring of its data network and voice connections will be completed in
fiscal year 2003. This upgrade will greatly increase the Court's access
to the Judiciary's Data Communications Network (DCN), improve data
speeds and enable the Court to address its current and future
telecommunications needs. Additionally, the Court has installed its own
frame relay connections for direct access to the DCN and a separate
frame relay connection that enables the Court to host public access
systems, such as its Internet Website. In fiscal year 2003, the Court
will purchase a Virtual Private Network System (VPN) that will provide
high speed remote access to Court systems by the Judges and Court
employees working at remote locations. As in the past, the Court will
continue to use its Judiciary Information Technology Fund for the
cyclical replacement of aging desktop and server based hardware
systems.
In fiscal year 2004, the Court remains committed to ensuring that
the Court's technology infrastructure will continue to support its
short and long term needs, thereby permitting the Court to operate
efficiently and effectively. Among the projects to be supported by the
Court's budget request and the carryforward balance from its Judiciary
Information Technology Fund are: (1) supporting the Court's Case
Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/EC) System; (2) expanding,
improving and supporting the Court's remote access capability; (3)
supporting a windows-based financial management system; (4) improving
the Court's disaster recovery capabilities; (5) supporting new software
applications that not only enable Judges and Court staff to view
instructional videos at individual workstations, but integrates the
Federal Judiciary's Training Network with the Court's local area
network; (6) upgrading the Court's networked records management and
tracking system for all case records; and (7) upgrading and supporting
the online library automation system that enables the Judges and Court
staff to search electronically for books and resource materials in the
Court's Library collection.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2004 request will enable the Court to
continue its cyclical maintenance program of the Court's facilities,
including the replacement of certain furniture with ergonomic designs
that will minimize the risk of injury to Court personnel.
Lastly, the fiscal year 2004 request also includes funds for the
continued support and maintenance of security system upgrades
implemented by the Court in fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
The Court's continued commitment to fulfill its mission through the
use of technology will enable it to enhance the delivery of services to
the Court family, bar and public.
I would like to reaffirm that the Court will continue, as it has in
the past, to conserve its financial resources through sound and prudent
personnel and fiscal management practices. The Court's ``General
Statement and Information'' and ``Justification of Changes,'' which
provide more detailed descriptions of each line item adjustment, were
submitted previously. If the Committee requires any additional
information, we will be pleased to submit it.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fern M. Smith, Director, Federal Judicial
Center
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to submit
this statement in support of the Federal Judicial Center's request for
fiscal 2004 funds to help it improve the administration of justice.
This is the last request I will submit to you; this fall, having
completed my four-year commitment, I will return to the Northern
District of California, where I have been a U.S. district judge since
1988. It has been a pleasure to work with the subcommittee and its
staff.
The Center's statutory Board, which the Chief Justice chairs, has
selected U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein of Seattle as the
Center's ninth director. She will take up her duties in early
September.
This statement summarizes our 2004 request and provides a brief
accounting of major Center activities to promote improved judicial
administration in the United States and, to the degree our resources
permit it, to work with other public and private organizations to
provide help to the judiciaries in foreign countries that need our
assistance.
As to the Center's 2003 funding, especially in light of the fiscal
constraints you faced, I am grateful for the base funding and the
partial adjustments to that funding. Thank you as well for recognizing
as part of the base budget, the funds you transferred in 2002 for
distance education, which provide us some of the positions for distance
education that we have been requesting since 1998.
2004 REQUEST
The Center's Board unanimously approved the 2004 request for
$22,434,000, an 8.3 percent increase to provide adjustments to the 2003
base, modest program enhancements to allow a return to a twelve-month
cycle of education programs for federal judges, and five additional
distance education positions. Statement of Hon. Fern M. Smith,
Director, Federal Judicial Center, May 1, 2003
Judicial education and training programs ($500,000)
The funds for more timely education for federal judges are vital to
our task of keeping judges knowledgeable about the constant changes in
the law, science, and technology. Last year, in fact, the Board
prepared its own statement supporting this element of that year's
request, noting ``the Board does not burden Congress with direct
communications about the Center's appropriation, relying instead on the
Center director for that task. The special importance of restoring
these programs to an annual basis merits an exception to that
practice.''
Center educational programs last year reached almost 31,700
participants. Almost 80 percent participated in satellite broadcasts
and other forms of distance education.
For federal judges, the Center provides education in several forms,
including manuals, satellite broadcasts, and small seminars or
workshops to orient new judges to their responsibilities and to provide
experienced judges with assistance in specific areas, such as mediation
or intellectual property law.
Another fundamental element of our education for judges is
periodic, general continuing education programs for circuit judges,
district judges, magistrate judges, and bankruptcy judges. These
programs assist judges on a variety of subjects, including updating
them on new case law relevant to frequently litigated issues,
describing new techniques of case management, and reviewing the ethics
requirements that govern judges. Moreover, these programs allow judges
to learn from their colleagues as well as from the faculty we assemble
and to share innovations that have proven successful as well as those
that have not.
Until 1999, a judge could attend such a general program once a
year. In 1999, we shifted to an eighteen-month cycle as our
appropriation declined and because we thought that distance education
could compensate for longer intervals between programs.
That decision has provoked considerable negative commentary from
judges across the country. As the Center Board said last year, ``[o]f
all the comments we receive from other judges about the Center's work,
none is as frequent and widespread as the need to make these programs
available on an annual basis. The Center's general continuing education
programs are the core of its educational effort for judges. They are
essential to helping judges meet the challenges of rapid change,
increasing complexity, and growing numbers in the cases before them.''
Seeking this modest increase in funds for judicial education
seminars in no way signals the Center's retreat from distance
education. In most respects, distance education has been a great
success. Our travel budget, with this request, would still be about
$1,000,000 below our 1995 travel budget. We want to continue to
emphasize cost-effective, non-travel, asynchronous learning for the
employees of the courts and for judges to the degree it is effective.
At the same time, we recognize that some face-to-face educational
opportunities are essential, especially for those with responsibilities
like those of federal judges. Heavy caseloads and the isolation
inherent in performing judicial duties limit opportunities for judges
to meet in a detached atmosphere and discuss the nuances of changing
precedents and case-management techniques. These are not subjects or
procedures that lend themselves to learning solely by computer or video
screen.
Five additional positions (3 FTE) to enhance the Center's use of
distance education technologies ($311,000)
The Center has long relied on distance education technologies for
the bulk of the education it provides, including the Federal Judicial
Television Network, which the Center began operating in April 1998.
Since then, the Center has been requesting ten additional positions for
video, multimedia, and automation specialists to support distance
education and its necessary technologies. You provided for some of
these positions in 2002 by transferring $400,000 to the Center's
appropriation from the funds that Congress had earlier transferred to a
completed federal appellate courts study commission, and then including
those funds in our 2003 base. We appreciate that assistance, but the
need for the remaining positions has not diminished, and so I am
requesting again funds to provide for five additional distance
education-related positions.
The five additional positions we seek in 2004 will permit us to
bring on additional software engineers and computer-training
technologists to ensure the federal courts have readily available,
quality education without the need or expense of travel.
CENTER SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES
The following summary of current Center activities is an accounting
for our stewardship of the funds you provide.
Promoting security in the administration of justice
The Center's ``critical incident stress management'' training helps
courts develop teams to provide crisis intervention to their personnel
victimized by natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and work-related
trauma. Such teams assisted in the crisis response for the New York
federal courts following 9/11.
Center Federal Judicial Television Network series on security
include:
--crisis management training through Leading in Times of Crisis,
featuring court managers who have successfully confronted
crises in their own courts, and. Confronting Crises: The
Employee's Perspective, to help staff prepare for potential
security threats and crises
--a safety series to enable probation and pretrial services officers
to mentally rehearse appropriate reactions to security threats
in the office, in the field, and during home contacts with
offenders, defendants, and third parties.
Additionally, at the request of the Judicial Conference Committee
on Court Administration and Case Management, the Center is assessing
the Conference's Criminal Case Files Pilot Programs to learn, among
other things, about the possible harm or threats of harm that may
result from providing remote public electronic access to documents
filed in criminal cases.
Promoting the fair and efficient disposition of litigation
Helping judges dispose of cases fairly, quickly, and inexpensively
is a major theme of our initial orientation seminars for new judges. We
also provide judges an extensive array of manuals and sourcebooks about
case-management techniques, including recurring problems in criminal
trials, managing cases for resolution by alternatives to conventional
procedures, and effective use of courtroom technology.
Our research for committees of the Judicial Conference includes
analyses of class action litigation and a study of the incidence of
sealed settlements in district courts across the country, a subject of
national interest since the recent decision of the federal district
court in South Carolina not to permit the practice.
Judicial ethics
We work closely with the Judicial Conference Committee on the Codes
of Conduct to keep judges and their staffs fully informed of their
ethical obligations and to help them understand the often complex rules
designed to promote judicial impartiality. This year we published two
new guides, one for judges on their recusal obligations under the
judicial disqualification statute and one for judges' law clerks on the
restrictions that apply to them.
Helping courts help offenders
The Center is conducting two related studies of federal court
programs, prompted by increased national interest in offender re-entry
programs and recent legislation providing post-incarceration vocational
and remedial educational opportunities for certain releasees. One study
will produce empirical information about federal probation officers'
efforts to assist appropriate prisoners in preparing for reentry into
the community. The other will help the Eastern District of Missouri
evaluate its Offender Employment Program, which emphasizes the
educational and employment needs of the offender and provides
employment-related services coordinated by probation officers who are
trained employment specialists.
We are also assessing the substance abuse treatment and mental
health services needs of Native American offenders, in order to help
probation and pretrial services officers better meet the special needs
of this group.
Promoting public understanding of the judicial process
We recently released an interactive Web site, ``Inside the Federal
Courts,'' available at http://www.fjc.gov, that helps federal court
employees, as well as the media and citizens of this and other
countries, understand the federal court system's structure and
operation. This includes a section on Congress's role in improving the
federal courts. We also produced an eighteen-minute video, An
Introduction to the Patent System, that judges may use to help explain
patents and the patent process to jurors. Bar associations are making
copies available to lawyers and the public.
Assisting the judiciaries of foreign countries
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to give you a brief update of our
work to promote independent and effective dispute resolution in the
courts of foreign countries.
In the last twelve months, the Center has provided briefings about
the U.S. judicial system to 488 judges and legal officials from 66
countries, as well as a limited amount of more substantial assistance,
either by in-country technical assistance or seminars held here in the
United States. Neither our briefings nor our more extensive projects
for foreign judiciaries are funded from the Center's appropriation. We
provide this assistance at the request of either domestic agencies or
foreign institutions, which fund the travel, lodging, and subsistence.
Our activities this year included a small seminar on educational
techniques with our counterparts from Mexico and Canada, this a follow-
up to the Chief Justice's meeting with the President of the Supreme
Court of Mexico in September 2001. The Center also hosted a number of
judges, scholars, and government officials as part of its Visiting
Foreign Judicial Fellows Program. These included a labor judge from
Brazil, who researched the use of alternative dispute resolution at the
appellate level, and an official from the Ministry of Justice of
Azerbaijan, who studied judicial education. In October 2002, I, and
another representative from the Center, participated in a CEELI
Institute conference in Prague, Czech Republic, that brought together
representatives of judicial training centers from Russia, Eastern
Europe, and Central Asia to discuss strategies for delivering judicial
education. The Center continues to facilitate a variety of other
international exchanges, including a bimonthly digital video-conference
between judges from Ecuador and the United States and a recent panel
discussion on the judiciary for officials from Afghanistan.
The Center workplace
The Center's statute provides greater flexibility in personnel
matters than many federal agencies enjoy. We have used that flexibility
to adopt a broad payband system and to implement employee-recommended
policies that will further our ability to give the taxpayers their due
while providing employees flexible work schedules and workplace
options. We know that the latter often contributes to the former.
Well before 1990, we permitted flextime for all employees. Since
1994, we have allowed employees to choose a compressed work schedule.
All of our employees use flextime and more than half are on compressed
work schedules.
In 1997 we established a telecommuting policy applicable to all
Center employees, subject to managers' discretion. Although it is not
practical to do some Center jobs--such as video production--at home, 8
percent of Center employees telecommute regularly. We also make
telecommuting available to employees on a day-by-day basis, as the
needs present themselves, and last year, we accommodated more than 50
requests from a staff of fewer than 140. We intend to do even better in
this regard next year.
To encourage employee use of public transportation, we offer our
employees a transportation subsidy of $60 per month.
Our employees are also eligible to participate in a number of
supplemental benefits programs, such as pretax health insurance premium
payments, flexible spending accounts to fund health care, child care,
and commuter costs (beyond those covered by the subsidy noted above),
and a long-term care insurance program. We are grateful to the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for developing these
innovative policies.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to explain our
budgetary needs for the next fiscal year and to describe some of the
Center's work and its effect on the work of the courts.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Diana E. Murphy, Chair, United States Sentencing
Commission
Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement in support of the
United States Sentencing Commission's appropriation request for fiscal
year 2004. The Commission was resurrected with the appointment of a
full complement of seven voting commissioners on November 15, 1999, and
I currently serve as Chair. In a relatively brief period, the
Commission has reestablished its policy making role in the federal
criminal justice system as envisioned by Congress under the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984.
To date, the new commissioners have promulgated over fifty
amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines, and Congress has
without exception accepted all of the Commission's amendments. The
Commission has set aggressive annual agendas and achieved significant
results by creating new guidelines and modifying existing guidelines
covering offenses such as:
--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons offenses,
--terrorism,
--sexual offenses against children,
--human trafficking and peonage,
--stalking,
--intellectual property infringement,
--identity theft,
--counterfeiting,
--economic crimes and money laundering,
--illegal firearm sales and possession,
--illegal reentry,
--ecstasy trafficking,
--methamphetamine and amphetamine manufacturing, and
--cultural heritage resources.
The Commission worked diligently to clear the significant backlog
of crime legislation created by previous vacancies on the Commission.
This amendment cycle, we expect to submit to Congress amendments to the
federal sentencing guidelines implementing new crime legislation and
addressing such difficult areas as:
--terrorism,
--corporate fraud,
--oxycodone offenses,
--cybersecurity,
--involuntary manslaughter,
--campaign finance violations, and
--offenses involving the use of body armor.
The Commission will be unable to respond to the emergencies
identified by Congress without the staff resources required. Sentencing
guidelines must be carefully crafted to meet policy needs and to fit
within our interlocking system. To accomplish what Congress expects,
the Commission must be able to maintain its ability to respond quickly
to emerging national priorities. The Commission is dedicated to
continuing its important role in addressing national priorities such as
terrorism and corporate crime, but our current resources limit our
ability to respond to new information, acquire sophisticated expertise,
and develop novel approaches.
For these reasons, the Commission requests an appropriation of
$13,200,000 for fiscal year 2004. This funding request for fiscal year
2004 represents a zero percent increase over the Commission's request
for fiscal year 2003.
RESOURCES REQUESTED
The Commission's appropriation request for fiscal year 2004 is
$13,200,000, the same amount requested for fiscal year 2003. We
understand increases are generally difficult to justify, particularly
this year, but we need to develop the necessary staff expertise in
areas of national importance such as terrorism and corporate crime.
Staff resources have become increasingly taxed at the same time as we
have received increased requests for sentencing information from the
Congress, the General Accounting Office, the federal Judiciary, the
media, and other interested parties. We now must analyze an increased
number of new case filings, develop ever more proposed guideline
amendments each year, and fulfill other statutory duties to train and
provide expertise on sentencing issues to the federal courts, Congress,
and the Executive branch. The Commission respectfully urges Congress to
appropriate $13,200,000 in fiscal year 2004 to enable the Commission to
keep pace with these significantly increased demands.
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 and maintain 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 guidelines manual incorporates amendments approved by the
Commission for newly enacted crime legislation passed by Congress. The
guidelines manual is used by prosecutors, defense counsel, and
probation officers in making sentencing recommendations to the courts.
Federal district judges must use the guidelines 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.
Commission Response to the Threat of Terrorism and Corporate Crime
This appropriation request again grows out of the need to
reestablish the staffing levels necessary to respond to emerging
national priorities and to support a fully functioning Commission. The
policy work of the Commission generally is determined by three sources:
(1) legislative directives by Congress and new 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 in the late
1990s and a firm commitment on the part of the new Commission to
respond quickly to congressional directives, the Commission has focused
resources toward implementing crime legislation. Congress has called
upon the Commission to implement crime legislation covering a wide
range of disturbing criminal conduct, including sexual offenses against
children, human trafficking and peonage, stalking, identity theft,
ecstasy trafficking, methamphetamine and amphetamine manufacturing, and
intellectual property infringement.
New laws passed by Congress to secure our nation from the threats
of terrorism and to protect our workforce from economic disruption
caused by corporate crime are perhaps the most important--and most
complex--for the Commission to implement. In the area of terrorism, the
Commission submitted to Congress a guideline amendment that
significantly increased the penalties for offenses involving the
importation and exportation of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons on May 1, 2001, a full four months before the terrorist strikes
of September 11th and subsequent nationwide anthrax attacks and
threats. By utilizing our extensive datasets to review national
security offenses, the Commission identified the inadequacy of existing
penalties before concerns were widely shared.
Congress responded quickly to the threat of terrorism by passing
the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56, and the Commission responded in
kind. In less than six months, the Commission promulgated a
comprehensive package of amendments to the guidelines implementing the
USA PATRIOT Act. Among the most significant of the provisions are
appropriately severe penalties for offenses committed against mass
transportation systems and interstate gas or hazardous liquid
pipelines, increased sentences for threats that substantially disrupt
governmental or business operations or result in costly cleanup
measures, expanded guideline coverage for bioterrorism offenses, and a
new guideline covering material support to foreign terrorist
organizations.
This year Congress once again has called upon the Commission to
implement terrorism related legislation. The Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-188,
and the Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002, Pub.
L. 107-197 require the Commission to develop new guideline provisions
to address protection of the nation's food and water supplies and to
review the penalty structure for certain national security offenses,
including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons offenses.
In addition, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (specifically
section 225, the ``Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002''), Pub. L.
107-296, requires the Commission implement new guideline provisions to
punish appropriately and effectively deter crimes that undermine our
nation's cybersecurity. Specifically, the Act requires the Commission
on an expedited basis to develop guideline provisions that adequately
account for eight enumerated factors, such as ``whether the offense
involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national
defense, national security, or the administration of justice,'' and
``whether the violation was intended to, or had the effect of,
significantly interfering with or disrupting a critical
infrastructure.''
The Commission is making progress toward implementing each of these
new terrorism related legislative items. As the nation learns more
about identifying terrorism related conduct, the Commission expects
Congress will continue to respond with further legislation. The
Commission needs to acquire additional staff expertise to meets its
related responsibilities. For example, Congress has introduced
legislation that would require significantly increased penalties for
certain terrorism related offenses involving identity theft, the
``Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act of 2003.'' This legislation
already has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and would require the
Commission to evaluate how it would affect and interact with existing
guideline provisions.
In April 2001, the Commission promulgated a multi-part amendment
that made comprehensive changes to the guidelines covering economic
crime. Economic offenses account for more than one quarter of all the
cases sentenced in the United States federal district courts. The
Commission had received from the federal Judiciary and the Department
of Justice testimony and survey results that indicate that the
sentences for these offenses were 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 passed a comprehensive economic crime
package that, among other things, provides significantly increased
penalties for mid and high level fraud, theft, and tax offenses
involving moderate and large monetary losses and significantly improved
the operation of the money laundering guideline.
While the Commission's guideline amendment was pending before
Congress, a number of corporate scandals became publicized. Congress
responded swiftly by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The Act
required the Commission to promulgate on an emergency basis several new
guideline provisions relating to securities fraud, pension fraud,
accounting fraud, and other more general types of fraud. Fortunately,
the Commission was able to build upon expertise it had acquired
developing the 2001 economic crime package, and in six months the
Commission completed a multi-part amendment that increases penalties
significantly for serious fraud offenses.
The emergency guideline, which became effective January 25, 2003,
includes new sentencing enhancements for offenses involving more than
100 victims, substantially endangering the solvency and financial
security of a publicly traded corporation or other organization with
1,000 or more employees, and securities fraud committed by officers or
directors of publicly traded corporations. The Commission continues to
address the problems and will submit for congressional review a
permanent amendment by May 1, 2003.
New Opportunities in Fiscal Year 2004 in Corporate Crime and Native
American Issues
Early in 2002 the Commission created two special panels of outside
experts to study problems related to corporate crime and disparities
encountered when Native Americans are sentenced in federal court under
the Major Crimes Act. Each ad hoc group was given eighteen months to
work on recommendations to the Commission, and each has been
functioning effectively and has obtained public input into its work.
Both groups will issue their reports in fiscal year 2004 which will be
shared with the public. Then the Commission will need to work on
possible amendments to Chapter 8 (the guidelines for sentencing
organizations, including corporations, associations, municipalities,
unions, etc.) and to guidelines particularly affecting Native
Americans. While this method of gathering expert assistance has proven
extremely cost effective, we need additional staff to draw out from a
wealth of material the optimum proposals and to translate them into
guidelines.
The corporate crime advisory group is comprised of sixteen
nationally recognized experts drawn from government, private business,
and academia, and is chaired by a former United States Attorney. The
Commission has requested the expert committee to review the
effectiveness of the criteria for an effective corporate compliance
program and the deterrence of corporate crime. The advisory committee
has actively engaged in research and soliciting public comment,
including a day-long public hearing. The hearing covered many issues
that bear directly on organizations' abilities and incentives to detect
and report wrongdoing before it becomes widespread and
institutionalized.
Congress also recognizes the critical role the organizational
guidelines perform, and in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directed the
Commission to ensure that the guidelines that apply to organizations
are sufficient to deter and punish organizational misconduct. Because
the Commission had a jump start in this area and had already formed the
advisory group, the expert panel will be able to report its findings
and recommendations to the Commission in October 2003. At that time,
the Commission expects to have a sound foundation for staff to help us
deliberate and consider promulgation of appropriate modifications to
the organizational guidelines during fiscal year 2004.
The formation of the Native American advisory group grew out of a
hearing the Commission held in Rapid City, South Dakota in 2001. The
Rapid City hearing focused on issues relating to Native Americans and
was attended by a number of individuals who now serve on the advisory
group. As a result of testimony at the hearing as well as public
comment we received, the Commission formed the advisory group and
requested that the group to report its findings during fiscal year
2004. The Commission is devoting additional staff resources to
sentencing issues that particularly affect Native Americans. For
example, the Commission has created a new sentencing guideline aimed at
protecting our cultural heritage resources and other national
treasures, has conducted several days of intensive training for
prosecutors defense attorneys, and probation officers in Indian
Country, and has begun to study federal crimes for which Native
Americans comprise a significant proportion of offenders, such as
manslaughter.
Additional Sentencing Priorities
Drug trafficking offenders continue to comprise the majority of the
federal criminal caseload, and the Commission is constantly identifying
and responding to new drugs of abuse. In recent years, the Commission
has acted to increase penalties significantly for methamphetamine,
amphetamine, ecstasy, and certain List I chemical offenses.
This amendment cycle the Commission is focusing on the increasing
problem of oxycodone trafficking. Using its comprehensive sentencing
database, the Commission recently identified a significant increase in
the number of offenses involving the pain killer Oxycontin. The
Commission currently is considering an amendment to the drug guideline
that will recalibrate the way in which this drug is penalized so that
the penalties for offenses involving oxycodone will be substantially
increased. The Commission hopes that this increased penalty structure
will help deter any further increase in the abuse of this drug and
serve to punish appropriately those criminals who engage in its illegal
trafficking.
The Commission also is aware that Congress may enact legislation
directing it to review the guidelines pertaining to GHB, a drug that is
often associated with date rape. Bills have been introduced both in the
Senate and the House on this issue, and, if enacted, they would require
the Commission to engage in a comprehensive review of the penalty
structure for this particular drug during fiscal year 2004. The
Commission also is aware of other drug related legislation that would
require a response from us if enacted.
The Commission also is examining several guidelines covering
offenses against persons and this work must be extended through fiscal
year 2004. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act, Pub. L. 107-273, for example, contains two
directives to the Commission. The first directs the Commission to
provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement for any crime of violence
or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant used body armor. The
Commission expects to submit an amendment to Congress by May 1, 2003,
implementing this first directive. The second and more complicated
directive requires the Commission to provide an appropriate sentencing
enhancement for assaults against a federal judge and lists eight
factors that the Commission must consider. The Commission expects that
the Native American advisory group's review of the federal assault
penalty structure will be helpful to implementation of this
congressional directive during fiscal year 2004.
The Commission also is reviewing the guideline covering involuntary
manslaughter after receiving congressional inquiries on the matter. The
Commission currently is considering an amendment that would
significantly increase the penalties for such offenses, but the
Commission's work in the area of crimes against individuals will
continue into fiscal year 2004. The overwhelming majority of offenders
convicted of assaults or homicide at the federal level are Native
Americans. As a result, the ad hoc committee also is examining the
guidelines pertaining to manslaughter. Even though the Commission may
make some change to the involuntary manslaughter guideline this
amendment cycle, we likely will continue our work in the area of
manslaughter until after receiving the report and recommendations from
the Native American advisory committee during fiscal year 2004.
The Commission also has been very active in the area of sexual
offenses. In every amendment cycle since the Commission was
reconstituted in 1999, the Commission has promulgated new amendment
provisions addressing various egregious sexual offenses. These many new
guideline provisions provide severe punishment for such heinous crimes
as human trafficking (in response to an emergency directive contained
in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000),
sexual abuse of a minor, and commercial sex acts such as the production
of child pornography and prostitution.
Sexual offenses involving children, however, continues to be of
great concern, and the Commission is aware of several bills recently
introduced in the 108th Congress that would require further action by
the Commission. For example, the Senate recently overwhelming passed S.
151, the ``PROTECT Act,'' which creates several new offenses relating
to ``virtual'' child pornography and contains several directives to the
Commission. The directives, among other things, would require the
Commission to incorporate the new virtual child pornography offense
into the sentencing guidelines and revisit guideline treatment of
offenses involving interstate travel to engage in illegal sexual acts
with children. If S. 151 or other similar bills are enacted, the
Commission will be required to devote significant resources toward
implementing those provisions during fiscal year 2004.
Ongoing Research and Analysis Obligations
In fiscal year 2004, as part of its ongoing mission the Commission
will continue to work on several studies reflecting the operation of
the guidelines since their inception. In conjunction with these
studies, the Commission began a comprehensive assessment of the
guidelines pertaining to drug offenses, which comprise a majority of
the cases sentenced under the guidelines. In May 2002, the Commission
issued a comprehensive 112 page report to Congress examining the
current federal penalty structure for crack cocaine and powder cocaine
offenses. The report contained concrete recommendations for Congress to
consider regarding statutory and guideline penalties for cocaine
offenses which I presented at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs on May 22, 2002.
The report on federal cocaine sentencing policy was informed by an
intensive project which involved analyzing the court documents for
1,600 cocaine offense cases sentenced in fiscal year 2000--representing
approximately 20 percent of all federal cocaine offenses that year. The
Commission analyzed important variables such as the offender's function
in the offense, the geographic scope of the offense, and the presence
of aggravating factors such as possession, brandishment, or use of a
weapon, bodily injury, sales to protected persons such as minors, and
sales in protected locations such as areas surrounding schools and
playgrounds.
The Commission currently is collecting similar data with respect to
other major drugs of abuse, such as methamphetamine, heroin, and
marijuana. This process entails gathering information on the offense
conduct and offender characteristics for over 3,000 federal drug
trafficking offenders. This analysis is continuing through fiscal year
2004 and provide information on the organizational structure of drug
trafficking operations and assist in the evaluation of the sentencing
structure for these offenses.
The Commission has also undertaken the most comprehensive study of
recidivism rates for federal offenders. The Commission is tracking more
than 6,000 federal offenders through the criminal justice system to
determine who becomes a repeat offender and what factors may be
predictive of such behavior. The results will assist in evaluating the
established criminal history categories and the role of the guidelines
in deterring crime. While encouraged by the progress made on the
project, full access to arrest and conviction records to complete the
work only recently occurred when Congress authorized access by the
Commission to a National Crime Information Center terminal under the
21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Act. The Commission
expects both the recidivism study and the consideration of any
modifications to the guidelines in response to its findings to continue
through fiscal year 2004.
Commission Struggles with Increasing Caseload
A key component to the Commission's ability to implement
legislation and develop new guideline provisions is its comprehensive,
computerized data collection system. This comprehensive database serves
as a clearinghouse of federal sentencing information and forms the
basis for the Commission's monitoring and evaluating the guidelines,
undertaking many of its research projects, and responding to hundreds
of data requests received from Congress and other criminal justice
entities each year.
For each case sentenced under the guidelines, the Commission enters
over 200 items of information into its database, such as each count of
conviction, the number and nature of victims, the magnitude of economic
loss, the type and quantity of drugs, and the number and type of
weapons. The Commission is only funded and physically equipped to
process some 40,000 cases annually, but for each of the last four years
it has received well over 50,000 cases annually. We expect to receive
63,000 cases in fiscal year 2003, and our resources do not permit
timely processing of the extensive information. We plan to experiment
with an electronic file transfer system to enable the 94 federal
districts to submit five major court documents (the Judgment and
Commitment Order, the Presentence Report, the Indictment, the Plea
Agreement, and the Statement of Reasons) to the Commission in a
paperless manner, thereby improving efficiencies and lessening delays,
but this system will require substantial start up costs.
Additionally, the Commission performs case processing for
organizational/corporate sentences, appellate cases, and probation
revocation/supervised release violations. The Commission also has
received requests that additional coding modules be added to analyze
Rule 35 sentencings and plea bargaining, which we could undertake only
with additional funding.
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
proportionately. 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 central goals of the Act.
Commission staff provides training on the sentencing guidelines to
more than 2,500 individuals annually at approximately 50 training
programs across the country, including ongoing programs sponsored by
the Commission, the Federal Judicial Center, the Department of Justice,
the American Bar Association, and other criminal justice entities. Each
year the Commission cosponsors a National Sentencing Seminar to train
hundreds of probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys on
guideline application. New personnel often have no knowledge of the
federal guidelines system, and seasoned personnel need training in the
new guidelines promulgated each year. The program is so popular that we
must turn away people due to the high volume of interest.
The Commission also plays a major role preparing for and
participating in the biennial National Sentencing Institute sponsored
by the Federal Judicial Center and attended by a large number of
federal judges. The Commission also maintains a telephone HelpLine
service to answer guideline application inquiries from federal judges,
probation officers, prosecuting and defense attorneys, and law clerks.
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 be diverted to other
projects.
SUMMATION
The Commission has worked very hard with limited resources to
respond when called upon to help the President and Congress address
emerging national priorities such as the threat of terrorism and
corporate fraud. In many ways these are novel complex areas that
require the Commission to acquire and maintain additional in-house
expertise. Moreover, Congress and the Commission continue to identify
new areas of concern that require substantial resources, such as
oxycodone offenses, involuntary manslaughter, and sexual offenses
against children. We cannot undertake a policy agenda of any real
significance without enhancing our staff power, particularly given the
large increase in the number of cases sentenced each year which require
compilation and analysis.
The requested funding level would enable the Commission to continue
its work in areas of national importance, enhance staff expertise,
provide training to a rapidly expanding audience, process its surging
caseload effectively, continue its monitoring and research of the
guidelines, and continue to be responsive to the concerns of the
federal criminal justice community.
______
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 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's fiscal
year 2004 budget request.
Our 2004 budget request totals $22,422,000. This is an increase of
$2,227,000 over the fiscal year 2003 approved appropriation of
$20,195,000. Twenty-nine percent (29 percent) of the requested
increase, $646,000, is for mandatory, uncontrollable increases in
costs. The remaining increase of $1,581,000 is for funding of
additional positions and other program increases.
Request for Program Increases
A total of $1,581,000 for program increases is requested. The
breakdown and further justification for each amount follows. The
justifications for the program increases are separated into four
categories: staffing; courtroom renovations; technology advancements;
and security staffing enhancements.
A portion of this program increase request, $653,000, was requested
to cover the cost of thirteen (13) additional Court Security Officers
(CSOs) for fiscal year 2004. These additional CSOs were requested and
needed to bring our total CSOs up to current U.S. Marshal Service
Standards. This requested increase, however, was included in the
recently enacted Supplemental Appropriation Bill. This amount will
enable us to begin the recruiting and hiring process in fiscal year
2003.
Two New Staff Positions
The court requests $208,000 to cover the cost of two new positions
for nine (9) months in fiscal year 2004. The positions requested are
for a Deputy to the Circuit Executive position ($130,000) and a
Computer Security Specialist ($78,000).
The position of Deputy to the Circuit Executive has become
necessary to assist the Circuit Executive with the variety of duties
assigned to that office. The Deputy would assist in overseeing the
offices that operate under the direction of the Circuit Executive and
would act in the absence of the Circuit Executive.
We also request funding to hire a full-time permanent Computer
Security Specialist. Upon completion of a formal security review and
assessment of the court's electronic information system, the National
Security Agency in August 2000 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 Computer
Security Specialist would ensure that all electronic communications and
information in judges' chambers and staff offices are protected and
secure from compromise or unlawful release. Both of these positions
were requested in our fiscal year 2003 budget request and denied.
Courtroom Renovations
The court is requesting $170,000 to begin the long-overdue
renovations of courtrooms to bring them up to 21st Century security and
technology standards to benefit judges, attorneys, and litigants. There
have been no upgrades to the courtrooms, with the exception of new
carpet, since the opening of the courthouse in 1967.
We have requested funding for this project in our 2001, 2002, and
2003 budget requests. We have taken our request to GSA as suggested by
the Subcommittee. At this time, GSA has indicated that they are taking
every appropriate action to have this project included in their fiscal
years 2004 and 2005 budgets. Should the court be successful in
receiving funding through GSA to pay for the renovations of the
courtroom Congress will be notified that this request for $170,000 is
no longer necessary.
Improvements in the Court's Courtroom and Courthouse Computer
Technology and Security
We request $490,000 for program advancements in the area of
technology in the courtrooms, judges' chambers, and staff offices.
The Judicial Conference of the United States recognized that
courtroom technologies are a necessary and integral part of courtrooms.
Based on those findings and the fact that the Administrative Office of
the United States 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 its courtrooms. The figure of
$215,000 was provided to the court by the AO based on its experience to
date with upgrading courtrooms. Not only would this benefit the
Judiciary and the court, it would benefit counsel and litigants. One
phase of this new technology will give counsel the opportunity to argue
a case offsite while connected to the courtroom as if the attorney were
in the courthouse, thus cutting expenses for the litigant.
We also request $205,000 to develop and augment a disaster recovery
plan for the court's electronic data system. In the event of a major
disaster, it will be necessary to access the court's computer network
from a remote site as well as locally. This amount is a one-time cost
estimate to put this recovery system in place.
The National Security Agency performed a study of court security in
2000 and recommended improved computer security hardware and software
to assist in the detection and prevention of electronic computer
attacks and intrusions to the court's computer network. The cost of
upgrading the security of the court's computer system is $70,000.
Increased Security Position
This court requests $60,000 to cover the cost of hiring one (1)
Supervisory Level on-site Deputy U.S. Marshal.
The court requests funding to hire one (1) full-time Supervisory
Level Deputy U.S. Marshal Inspector to coordinate facilities security
at the National Courts Building based on this same need for upgraded
security. The Inspector will report to the Chief Judge, will ensure
that protection of judges on and off-site is properly coordinated, will
supervise the court security officers assigned to the National Courts
Building, and will work with the court security committee on matters
involving staff and courthouse security.
Currently the Federal Circuit shares a Deputy U.S. Marshal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The
shared U.S. Deputy Marshal is assigned to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia and is located at the District of Columbia
Circuit courthouse. It is a daunting task and a big assignment for one
person to cover adequately the security needs of two separate
courthouses and four separate courts located in different parts of the
District of Columbia.
In a March 7, 2003 memorandum to Chief Judges of the U.S. Courts,
AO Director L. Ralph Mecham emphasized the importance of having a full-
time Deputy U.S. Marshal Inspector assigned to each court. ``It seems
clear,'' Director Mecham said, ``that in today's high risk environment
there should be USMS personnel at the local level assigned to security
responsibilities on a full-time basis.'' As the only United States
Court of Appeals with national jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit should
be given the same consideration in the assignment of security personnel
as the twelve other regional circuits. Indeed, it is hard to understand
how the USMS can assign a Deputy U.S. Marshal Inspector to the District
of Columbia Circuit--a regional court of appeals--and direct that
Inspector to provide security to the Federal Circuit--a national court
of appeals located across from The White House--on an as-needed basis.
I also would like to address a statement that was contained in the
Conference Report for our 2003 budget request. That document contained
language referring to a reduction in the number of filings at the
Federal Circuit between 1992 and 2001. Our figures show that total case
filings for the Federal Circuit for the ten-year period did drop 219
cases from 1,702 in fiscal year 1992 to 1,483 in fiscal year 2001. That
drop is consistent with the statement contained in the Conference
Report. However, the reduction in the court's caseload does not justify
a reduction in staff for two reasons.
First, starting with the 1,702 cases in 1992--which represented at
that time the second highest number of annual case filings since 1982--
the number of total cases filed each subsequent year through 2001
sometimes increased and sometimes decreased and occasionally exceeded
1,702. In fiscal year 2002, the Federal Circuit's total filings
increased to 1,748; this is the third highest number of filings ever
for the Federal Circuit--nearly 18 percent higher than the 2001 filings
and 3 percent higher than the 1992 filings.
The second reason why the reduction of 219 case filings over the
ten-year period does not justify a reduction in court staff is that the
reduction does not reflect an important change in the court's workload.
In short, it ignores how particular categories of cases have increased
or decreased. Attention to the number of appeals in patent cases from
district courts is critical when assessing the court's workload. Patent
cases typically involve complex science and engineering principles, as
well as multiple issues dealing with patent validity, infringement,
defenses, counterclaims, and damages. In addition, the patent cases
often have lengthy trial records and extensive damages. In sum, patent
appeals typically take much more time than, for example, the court's
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) cases. Hence, even though case
filings went down by 219 when comparing 1992 to 2001, appeals from
district courts--almost all of which are patent cases--went up from 315
in 1992 (about 18.5 percent of the total cases), to 403 in 2001 (about
27 percent of the total cases). At the same time, the much easier MSPB
cases dropped from 789 in fiscal 1992, to 421 in fiscal 2001. And in
fiscal 2002, when total cases increased nearly 18 percent from 2001,
district court cases increased 19 percent, to 480, while MSPB cases
rose only 3 percent, to 435.
The significant rise over the last 10 years in the number of patent
infringement cases filed with the court and the nearly 18 percent
increase in the court's annual filings from 2001 to 2002 warrant an
increase--not a decrease--in court staff. Further, a careful review of
the number of support personnel assigned to the Federal Circuit will
establish that the staff numbers are considerably smaller than other
courts of appeals.
I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the
Committee may have or to meet with the Committee members or staff about
our budget requests.
Thank you.
______
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Prepared Statement of the American Bar Association
The American Bar Association is centrally concerned with promoting
improvements in the administration of justice and preserving the
independence of the judiciary as fundamental to a free society. In
furtherance of these two objectives, we are submitting this statement
to address the need for increased compensation for Article III judges
and to urge Congress to appropriate adequate funds for the State
Justice Institute. We respectfully request that this statement be
incorporated into the Subcommittee's record of hearings on fiscal year
2004 appropriations for Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary and
Related Agencies.
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
In 1984, Congress created the State Justice Institute (SJI) as a
federally funded, private, non-profit corporation to award federal
grants to improve the quality of justice in state courts, facilitate
better coordination between state and federal courts, and foster
innovative, efficient solutions to common problems faced by all courts.
It is the only source of federal funding exclusively dedicated to
helping to meet the needs of our state courts, which hear over 97
percent of the nation's cases. Since it became operational in 1987, the
SJI has parlayed a modest amount of federal money into court
improvement projects that benefit the nation's judicial system in its
entirety and the public it serves. On behalf of the Association's
410,000 members, we can unequivocally say that the overwhelming
consensus in the legal community is that the SJI effectively,
efficiently and consistently executes its mandate despite a de minimis
annual budget, which has never exceeded $13.55 million.
In creating the State Justice Institute, Congress recognized that
our state and federal courts are separate but interdependent and that
the quality of justice in this nation depends on the vitality of both
court systems. Concluding that the federal government has a stake in
maintaining strong state judicial systems and improving state-court
partnerships, Congress created SJI to monitor the state judicial
system, assist in prioritizing the needs of the state courts and award
small federal grants to foster solutions to critical problems
confronting the courts. To enable all courts to benefit from federally
funded projects, Congress required SJI to maximize the impact of each
grant--even those that provide technical assistance to a court with a
specific problem--through a variety of techniques, such as maintaining
readily accessible information clearinghouses to assure that effective
new approaches are shared with courts nationwide, convening national
conferences to address emerging justice system issues, and placing
practical products into the hands of judges and court personnel who can
most benefit from them. These various strategies have proven effective
in maximizing the benefits derived from each spent federal dollar and
avoiding wasteful duplication of effort to solve identical or similar
judicial administration problems.
After 15 years of SJI's operation, and out of a renewed concern for
fiscal restraint in a time of competing budgetary demands, Congress
requested that the Attorney General of the United States evaluate and
report back on the effectiveness of the SJI. In November 2002, the
Attorney General submitted his report to Congress in which he concluded
that SJI effectively implements its mission with only minimal
administrative costs. Moreover, the Attorney General reaffirmed the
wisdom of the 98th Congress by validating the premise on which SJI was
created. He noted that an important Federal purpose was served by
supporting SJI's mission to improve the quality of justice in state
courts, observing that, ``given overlapping state-federal jurisdiction,
it is in the Federal government's interest to have effective and fair
state courts, lest litigants turn to Federal courts to resolve matters
properly within state court responsibilities.''
The American Bar Association concurs with these core findings. By
strengthening our state courts, SJI grants strengthen our entire
justice system. Furthermore, we would like to point out that the
federal government also has a direct interest in the vitality of our
state courts because many important federal programs depend on state
courts for their implementation.
Subsequent Congresses, including this one, have in fact
acknowledged the appropriateness of providing federal assistance to
state court projects by regularly appropriating funds for specific
state court improvement projects sponsored by individual members. In
fact, the funds spent on these projects often have exceeded the maximum
appropriation SJI has ever received. While we do not doubt that such
funds have been expended for worthy state court projects that have
improved the administration of justice in a particular jurisdiction or
state, we do not believe that it is a cost-efficient or effective way
to provide federal financial support to strengthen our state judicial
system. In contrast, disseminating federal funds through SJI assures
that government money is spent on finding solutions to the most
pressing judicial administration problems and sharing these solutions
with every state and federal court.
The conference report accompanying Pub. L. No. 108-7 appropriated
$3.1 million in funding for SJI for fiscal year 2003 but contained the
proviso that SJI should obtain future funding from ``bar associations
and the States, who are the beneficiaries of SJI's work.'' Such a
proposal is unrealistic and would effectively terminate this highly
effective program.
The courts are an integral part of our democratic system of
government. Their support should come from the public fisc. SJI was
created to provide federal support for needed improvements to
supplement state court resources, which are often inadequate because of
strapped state budgets. Bar associations and other grantee
organizations, in essence, already contribute their own funds to SJI by
absorbing some of the cost of any grant activity in which they are
involved. Furthermore, SJI relies on the dedication and expertise of
organizations, such as the ABA, to develop and implement programs that
will strengthen the justice system; and in return, SJI pays for a
substantial portion of the cost of worthy programs, while grantees
provide a certain amount of matching funds. In this way, SJI grants not
only require a sharing of the financial burden, but they also help
forge essential public-private partnerships to address justice system
issues.
In addition, the ABA and other bar associations already make
substantial financial (in addition to other) contributions to promote
excellence in the justice system by annually allocating a significant
amount of their general revenues for judicial system improvements. For
example, in fiscal year 2004, the ABA alone will spend almost $2.5
million on such programs and projects.
In conclusion, terminating funding for the only government-funded
entity exclusively dedicated to providing federal grants for projects
to improve state courts makes no sense, especially at a time when our
courts are facing a nation-wide fiscal crisis. Congress has a strong
federal interest in strengthening the state courts and maintaining a
robust justice system as well as a responsibility to implement sound
fiscal policies. To deny the small sum of $13.5 million to a program
that is supported by every state supreme court and highly praised by
the legal community, but authorize appropriations for projects that
primarily benefit individual state courts, represents a serious fiscal
miscalculation. For all these reasons, the ABA urges Congress to
preserve SJI as a federally funded institute and to appropriate
sufficient funds for fiscal year 2004 for SJI to carry out its mandate.
The ABA recommends an appropriation of $13.5 million--the amount that
SJI received in 1996.
Article III Judicial Salaries
The 108th Congress has inherited a federal salary system for top-
level government officials that is badly in need of reform. This is
particularly true with respect to the Federal Judiciary.
The National Commission on the Public Service (otherwise known as
the ``Volcker Commission'') concurs with this assessment. Composed of
government leaders from past Administrations, the non-partisan
Commission recently issued its report, Urgent Business for America:
Revitalizing the Federal government for the 21st Century, which
concluded that ``[j]udicial salaries are the most egregious example of
the failure of federal compensation policies.'' It recommended that
Congress take immediate steps to substantially raise federal judicial
pay.
During the past decade in particular, judges have experienced both
an absolute loss in purchasing power and a relative decline in
remuneration as the salaries of peer group members have risen
dramatically. Despite five salary adjustments since 1993, judges have
suffered a 10.9 percent decline in the purchasing power of their
salaries. That judicial pay has not even kept pace with inflation has
robbed judges of the prospect of salary stability during their tenure
on the bench.
Judges freely acknowledge that rendering public service in a highly
visible and respected role and serving in a lifetime appointment are
intangible benefits that help compensate for the reduced salary levels
associated with the bench. Nonetheless, compensation levels for
attorneys from other work sectors are relevant to the issue of fair and
adequate judicial compensation.
While the vast majority of federal judges have the requisite years
of experience and legal skills that would enable them to command
compensation similar to that paid to top-notch, seasoned attorneys in
the private sphere ($400,000 to $800,000 according to the most recent
surveys conducted by the National Law Journal), it is obviously not
practical to suggest that Federal judges should be paid that much. The
salaries of leaders of academia or nonprofit institutions are
considered more reasonable points of reference because the level of
education and expertise required of leaders of these institutions and
the psychic satisfaction derived from holding such jobs are comparable
to those of Federal judges.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in testimony submitted to the
Volcker Commission, stated that the average salary of nonprofit CEOs is
$212,000--approximately 20 percent higher than that of a Supreme Court
Justice and about 35 percent higher than that of a federal district
judge. Further, the differential between federal judicial salaries and
salaries of leaders in the academic world is even larger: the average
salary for deans of the twenty-five law schools ranked highest in the
annual U.S. News and World Report survey was $301,639 and the average
base salary for full professors at those law schools was $209,571.
Even though market conditions alone should not be the measure of
the adequacy of judicial salaries, the widening disparity between
judicial salaries and those of attorneys with comparable skills
employed in the private sphere is causing demonstrable harm to our
nation's Third Branch by deterring excellent candidates from seeking
judicial appointments and motivating sitting judges to resign
prematurely from office to enter a more lucrative field.
Between 1990 and 2003, 77 Article III judges resigned or retired
from the Federal bench and many of them returned to private practice.
Fifty-one of the 77 departed judges entered the private practice of law
and 14 others accepted jobs in related fields. Sixteen of the 77 judges
departed before reaching retirement age, thereby forfeiting their right
to salary for life. Premature departures from the bench impose both
real and intangible costs upon the Third Branch, by compromising
judicial independence fostered by life tenure and depriving the Federal
Judiciary of the skills of some of its most capable and experienced
jurists.
Inadequate judicial salaries also disadvantage the Federal
Judiciary in the ``war for talent.'' Judicial pay may not be a
deterrent to individuals who are independently wealth or who are
already in public service, where salaries are generally lower, but it
is a strong disincentive for lawyers in private practice whose varied
experiences bring a perspective and independence that is vital to the
judiciary. Our analysis of the occupations held immediately prior to
the confirmation of all district and circuit court judges appointed
since 1977 supports this conclusion. For example, during President
Carter's term of office, 49.5 percent of his district court appointees
came from the public sector, while 57.6 percent of President Bush's
district court appointees through the 107th Congress have come from the
public sector.
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made this same point in an
interview published in the May 2002 edition of The Third Branch:
``We are aware of both young lawyers with family obligations and
established prominent lawyers with substantial investment in their
practice and community who feel that they cannot afford to go on the
federal bench. The Judiciary suffers when it cannot attract top tier
lawyers for whatever reason.''
The Federal Judiciary benefits from the collective wealth of
experience of its jurists who have served in different capacities in
the public and private sectors. It is enriched by their diverse
backgrounds and better able to serve the need of all Americans. We
cannot afford to lose the diversity of the bench that comes from the
appointment of individuals of varying financial means who have served
in different capacities in both the public and private sectors.
In conclusion, while we recognize that there is a compelling need
for salary reform within all top levels of government, we believe that
there is an urgent and immediate need to substantially increase
judicial salaries in order to maintain a stellar judiciary and protect
one of the pillars of our democracy--Federal judicial independence. We
urge you to support an appropriation for the Federal Judiciary that is
sufficient to cover a substantial pay raise for all Article III judges.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the
following as the Subcommittee considers appropriations for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fiscal year 2004. The American
Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade association whose 555
members include fishing tackle manufacturers, sport fishing retailers,
boat builders, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the outdoor media.
The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
this Nation. It is important to note that sportfishing provides $116
billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each
year. Sportfishing in marine waters alone provides a $31 billion impact
each year to coastal states.
Saltwater fishing is the fastest growing sector of recreational
fishing. Because of this the ASA urges NMFS to continue the pursuit of
sound management of marine fish stocks by supporting the Regional
Fishery Management Councils, the States, and the Interstate Marine
Fisheries Commissions. Collectively, these programs conduct research
and collect data that is essential for managers to appropriately
maintain marine stocks and assure that areas are open to anglers. For
the Regional Fishery Management Councils to carry out the regulations
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act they
must be properly funded. The Association recommends funding the
Regional Councils activities at the $16.032 million level.
The Association supports the fiscal year 2004 President's request
for a $3.0 million increase in funds for fisheries stock assessment and
improvement of data collection, but also recommends an additional $21.2
million with the goal of funding stock assessment at the $100 million
level by fiscal year 2008.
The ASA requests a total of $12.8 million for Fish Statistics--
Economics and Social Science Research. These would include:
--An increase in base funding for NOAA Fisheries could create a
premiere Center for Excellence in Recreational Fisheries
Economics. The Center could be housed in NOAA Fisheries and
could provide the umbrella for recreational fisheries data
collection and economic analysis conducted within NOAA
Fisheries and by academia under contract. The Center will serve
three primary functions: (1) strategic planning for data
collection and analysis; (2) development and application of
analytical techniques for measuring the costs, benefits, and
impacts of recreational fisheries management; and (3) improved
outreach and information sharing to ensure that both fisheries
managers and the public receive and understand the data
products. The Center will work in concert with and complement
the existing NOAA Fisheries recreational fisheries economics
program and the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) program. The ASA recommends a $500,000 increase in base
funding in fisheries statistics for the Center.
--The Association urges Congress to appropriate an additional $9.5
million in new base funding for fisheries statistics to
significantly improve catch and effort data through the NOAA
Fisheries' Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS). Base funding has not increased substantially since the
survey's inception in 1979. Improved data collection is central
to achieving the rebuilding and management standards called for
in the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
--The ASA recommends Congress increase base funding by $2.8 million
for the NOAA Fisheries recreational economics program. This
program within NOAA Fisheries is severely understaffed and
under-funded. The most basic recreational fishery data is
unavailable making NOAA Fisheries unable to fulfill their
congressionally mandated requirements to provide the basic data
for recreational fisheries management. This additional funding
should go directly towards outfitting new Centers with PhD
level recreational fisheries economists, improving data
collection and conducting expenditure surveys, and conducting
critical research.
The Association urges congress to appropriate $10 million for the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act which allows
government, state agencies, and interstate marine fishery commissions
to work together in support of fisheries resources. These efforts have
showed success in stripped bass and weakfish management, and it's
continued success relies on this level of funding.
Fish habitat restoration programs would be more cost-effective and
successful if partnered under a State-Federal cooperative program
undertaking research and management of fish habitat. ASA is pleased
with the Administration's budget of $13.22 million for fish habitat
restoration. Furthermore, we support the continuation of the Charleston
Bump Billfish Tagging program that serves as an important fish nursery
for Atlantic Highly Migratory Fish species (AHMF).
Providing a complete database of information on high priority
species aids in identification, protection and restoration efforts of
exploited fish along the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts. The SEAMAP
program builds this database and partners with another program, the
MARFIN program, and together they work to support fishery independent
research on high priority species. ASA is concerned about the erosion
of these partnerships and recommends funding for the SEAMAP program at
$6 million and the MARFIN program also at $6 million ($4 million for
the Southeast and $2 million for the Northeast).
The American Sportfishing Association is very concerned with the
low level of funding for the Anadromous Fisheries Act. Continual
declines in funding means the needs of most anadromous fish stocks will
not be met because funding cannot be supported through other federal
and state funds or the fisheries management community. Therefore, the
Association urges Congress to fund the Anadromous Fisheries Act grants
to States at $8 million.
The ASA is again disappointed in the level of funding for the
Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program. This program promotes and develops
fisheries by funding high priority research and development needs. ASA
urges the Administration to restore this program to the fiscal year
1999 level of $11.171 million.
The ASA agrees with the Administration's request to ensure NMFS'
vessels are in good condition for proper management and research needs.
These vessels are chartered privately by universities and states, and
thus their condition is important to the safety of their users.
Concluding with our NMFS recommendations we would also like to
comment on some of the other line items in NOAA's budget.
ASA urges Congress to recognize critical marine resources issues
and how funding efforts can play a large role in developing new
technologies. These efforts are stronger with the ability of a
coalition of federal and state scientists for these critical issues.
Two important efforts taking place at the Hollings Marine Laboratory
(HML) and the Fish Cooperative Institute, does important work on marine
environmental health, biotechnology, and ecototxicology. The
Association is pleased with the Administration's request to fund the
HML at $2.5 million and the Fish Cooperative Institute at $750,000.
The past few years have encountered a large breakout of algal
blooms resulting in bad pfiesteria seasons. In response to this, effort
to research and control the problem was largely taken on by the South
Carolina Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force and was funded by the
government. The Administration has proposed to terminate this program
and the ASA urges Congress to continue funding this program at $600,000
to continue the work on the outbreak of algal blooms.
Two of the most successful state-federal cooperative efforts to
improve the quality of our natural resources are the National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR) and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs. The
American Sportfishing Association is pleased with the proposed $16.4
million for NERR and the $10.012 million for research facilities at
NERR sites. In addition, we are very pleased with the many efforts of
these programs ranging from public access to non-point source
pollution. The ASA also supports the Administration's request for $85
million for the CZM grants to help states and local communities work to
improve coastal areas.
The Coastal Services Center makes valuable contributions toward
stewardship and provides support to the coastal states in regards to
advanced coastal decision support systems. This program has yielded
innovative work in conjunction with state participation and the ASA
urges funding at the $18 million level.
One important task of NOAA is to be able to access and treat
damaged marine resources caused by releases of hazardous substances.
The Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP) directs these
efforts and takes on the responsibility of restoring these damaged
areas as quickly as possible to reduce the amount of loss of fisheries
and marine habitats. The Association strongly supports the President's
request for $17.199 million for damage assessment activities and
restoration efforts of DARP.
The Sea Grant College Program provides critical research and
educational opportunities for maintenance and improvement of marine
resources. The Association recommends funding at the authorized level
of $73 million and we also disagree with the proposed moving of the
program to the National Science Foundation. NOAA is more efficient at
connecting the researchers and their findings to the marine community.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the ASA is concerned about NMFS' promotion
and use of marine reserves to the exclusion of other proven management
options. This has penalized recreational anglers and is far from a
proven management tool for marine resources. Public closures should be
the last management option, not the first. Furthermore, NMFS has
prepared no standardized implementation guidelines, no conservation
goals, or long term monitoring plans for the use of marine reserves.
The ASA requests that funding for the planning and implementation of
any future marine reserves be halted until management guidelines, such
as those outlined in the Freedom To Fish legislation, are put in place.
Mr. Chairman, please make these recommendations part of the record
for the Subcommittee's 2004 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Doris Day Animal League
Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, thank you for the opportunity
to submit testimony on behalf of the 300,000 members and supporters of
the Doris Day Animal League requesting that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation assign the crime of animal cruelty its own classification
in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
The Significance of Animal Cruelty as a Crime: ``The Violence
Connection''
Animal cruelty, especially egregious acts, was once viewed as an
offensive behavior unrelated to other crimes. Now it is recognized as a
serious crime with important implications for human society. A growing
body of research, produced over the last thirty years, establishes a
clear link between animal abuse and human violence. One comprehensive
study of data from a twenty-year period found that adults convicted of
animal were more likely than their peers to engage in other forms of
criminal activities, including violent crimes against humans, property
crimes, and drug and disorderly offenses. Other studies conducted in a
number of counties in the United States confirm the overlap between
committing acts of animal cruelty and engaging in other types of
criminal behavior. In addition to the association between animal
cruelty and criminal behavior, there is also evidence that the severity
of violence against animals can indicate the degree of aggressiveness
toward human individuals. Research on incarcerated adult males
demonstrated that the most aggressive inmates had the most violent
histories of animal cruelty. It is worth noting that in dangerous
situations such as a hostage taking, the FBI has included a history of
animal cruelty among the factors used to determine an individual's
threat level.
Another important link between animal abuse and human violence,
with important policy implications, is the co-occurrence of family
violence and animal abuse. In interview studies with domestic violence
victims, between 54-71 percent of the women report that their partners
also harmed or killed the family pet. Child abuse and animal abuse also
are linked: animal abuse was confirmed in 88 percent of families under
the supervision of a child welfare agency for physically abusing their
children.
In addition to being linked to other types of criminal activity and
family violence, animal abuse by children signals an important warning.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was one of the first to recognize
the significance of juvenile animal cruelty when it reported that many
serial killers had abused animals as children. It also has been
reported that many of the school shooters had engaged in various forms
of animal cruelty. The National Crime Prevention Council, the
Department of Education, and the American Psychological Association all
list animal cruelty as one of the indicators or warning signs of future
violence. Furthermore, researchers agree that persistent aggressive
behavior in childhood, termed ``conduct disorder,'' tends to be fairly
stable trait throughout life and is the single best predictor of later
criminal behavior. Animal cruelty is one of the symptoms for a
diagnosis of conduct disorder and therefore can be one of the earliest
indicators that a child is at risk.
Not all children who abuse animals will become serial killers,
school shooters, or criminals as adults. However, research clearly
suggests that engaging in childhood animal cruelty conditions an
individual to accept, or engage in, interpersonal violence as an adult.
Responses to ``The Violence Connection''
Government bodies, professional organizations, and communities have
responded to information about the animal abuse-human violence
connection. For example, before 1990, only seven states had felony
provisions in their animal anti-cruelty statutes; now 41 states and the
District of Columbia have felony-level laws. As of this date, 24 states
have provisions in their animal anti-cruelty statutes that permit or
mandate psychological counseling for offenders.
In addition to changes in state animal cruelty statutes, awareness
of the significance of animal abuse as a crime has resulted in the
development of a number of programs. ``Safe Pet'' programs, in which
the pets of domestic violence victims are provided safekeeping so that
women feel free to leave dangerous situations, are being instituted in
communities throughout the United States. Animal control officers are
being trained to ``cross report,'' that is, to look for signs of child
and spousal abuse when investigating an animal abuse or neglect
complaint. Intervention programs for children and adults who abuse
animals have been developed and mental health professionals are being
trained in this area of treatment.
Modifying the Reporting Categories of the Uniform Crime Reporting
Program
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is a nationwide effort in
which crime statistics are collected from nearly 17,000 city, county,
and state law enforcement agencies. During 2000, the participating
agencies represented 94 percent of the total U.S. population. The
current UCR Program classifies offenses in two groups, Part I and Part
II. Crimes vary from criminal homicide in Part I to vagrancy and curfew
and loitering laws in Part II. Not only law enforcement, but also
criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the
media, and others interested in criminal justice use the statistics for
research and planning purposes. However, under the current UCR Program,
there is no category to report crimes of animal cruelty, even though
animal abuse often is an indicator of other types of criminal behavior,
including family violence.
Assigning the crime of animal cruelty to its own classification
would have a number of advantages. Law enforcement agencies,
researchers, policy planners, and others would be better able to
understand the factors associated with animal abuse, track trends at
the state and national level, and determine demographic characteristics
associated with animal abuse--all of which would assist in promoting
more effective intervention and prevention strategies to interrupt the
cycle of violence. Finally, assigning animal cruelty its own category
would assist law enforcement agencies by helping them identify and
track individuals with histories of violence.
Proposed Report Language for the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations
We respectfully request that the Subcommittee consider the
following report language for the Commerce, Justice, State and
Judiciary Appropriations bill:
``The Committee commends the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
for its successful Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Currently,
there is no individual category for animal cruelty in the UCR Program
even though animal cruelty is a crime in all states, certain acts of
animal cruelty are felonies in 41 and the District of Columbia, and it
is linked to other types of crime, including family violence.
Therefore, there is no way to systematically track such cases. The
current practice is to rely on the limited ability of local animal
control agencies to monitor animal cruelty cases or literally check
local court records. Given the current arrangement, state and national
trends are impossible to identify.
``The Committee directs the FBI to provide the necessary resources
to assign the crime of animal cruelty its own classification in the UCR
Program by adding this category to its software and other reporting
mechanisms. This will enable law enforcement agencies and researchers
to track trends and better understand factors associated with
committing animal abuse, allowing more effective interventions.
Additionally, individuals who are more likely to commit other serious
crimes could be identified.
``The Committee further directs the FBI to provide a report to the
Committee by December 2003 on the integration of this category into its
UCR Program.''
REFERENCE LIST
Ascione, F. A. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review
of research and Implications for developmental psychopathology.
Anthrozoos, 6, 226-247.
Ascione, F. A. (1998). Battered women's reports of their partners'
and their children's' cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse,
1, 119-133.
Ascione, F. A. (2001). Animal abuse and youth violence. Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Juvenile Justice
Bulletin, September.
Boat, B. (1999). Abuse of children and abuse of animals: Using the
links to inform child assessment and protection. In F. R. Ascione & P.
Arkow (Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking
the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention (pp. 83-100).
West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Deviney, E., Dickert, J., & Lockwood, R. (1983). The care of pets
within child abusing families. International Journal for the Study of
Animal Problems, 4, 321-329.
Felthous, A.R. & Kellert, S.R (1987). Childhood cruelty to animals
and later aggression against people: A review. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 144, 710-717.
Flynn, C. P. (2000). Why family professionals can no longer ignore
violence toward animals. Family Relations, 49, 87-95.
Jory, B. & Randour, M.L. (1999). The AniCare Model of Treatment for
Animal Abuse (adult version). Printed and distributed by the Doris Day
Animal Foundation and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals.
Kellert, S.R. & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward
animals among criminals and noncriminals. Human Relations, 38, 1113-
1129.
Luke, C., Arluke, A., Levin, (1997) Cruelty to animals and other
crimes: A study by the MSPCA and Northeastern University. Boston:
Massachusetts. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Randour, M.L., Krinsk, S., & Wolf, J. (2002). AniCare Child: An
Approach for the Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Animal Abuse.
Printed and distributed by the Doris Day Animal Foundation and
Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
______
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. This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2004
budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). UCAR is a consortium of 66 universities that manages and
operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
additional atmospheric and related sciences programs. 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 40 international universities and laboratories. The National
Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies, including NOAA,
support UCAR.
INTRODUCTION
As one of the world's foremost scientific and environmental
agencies, NOAA has responded to the needs of the nation in designing
its budget and program to protect citizens, the environment and the
economy. Last year the NOAA leadership conducted a nationwide program
review, asking for input from NOAA's many stakeholders. Those responses
are reflected in the subsequent strategic plan, ``New Priorities for
the 21st Century.'' We applaud the NOAA leadership for its vision, and
urge the Committee to support the critical, evolving work of this
agency. Within the NOAA fiscal year 2004 budget request, I would like
to comment on the following offices and programs:
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
The OAR supports a network of scientists and environmental research
laboratories in order to provide the sound science upon which decision
makers can frame effective regulations to solve environmental problems
and upon which economic growth can be managed in an environmentally
sound manner. The President's request for OAR overall is down 2 percent
from the fiscal year 2003 final appropriation. However, since the
fiscal year 2004 request, which preceded the fiscal year 2003 final
numbers, was based on the fiscal year 2003 request and reflected a
major increase for OAR, we believe that the Administration is
demonstrating strong commitment to the work of OAR. Therefore, I ask
the Committee to provide OAR with a five percent increase and fund the
Office at $384.0 million in fiscal year 2004.
U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP).--USWRP is an interagency
program that is dedicated to making forecasts of high-impact weather
more specific, accurate, and reliable, thereby saving lives and
property, and helping regional economies. I urge the Committee to
support the fiscal year 2004 request of $4.0 million for the USWRP Base
and $1.3 million for THORPEX, an international program focused on
extending weather predictability from the current 7 days to two weeks
and double the rate of improvements in forecast skill by 2012, and to
support the request of $7.3 million for the High Impact Weather Program
component of the USWRP.
U.S. Weather Research Program--Collaborations Fund.--Through the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the National
Weather Service (NWS), NOAA bears a great responsibility for advancing
the nation's weather research and the application of that research to
improve weather forecasts and warnings. The best way to accomplish this
is to form working alliances, or partnerships, between the scientific
expertise that exists within NOAA and the country's broad expertise
within the university and private sector communities. Competitive
proposals and a peer review process through the establishment of a
Collaborations Fund would ensure that the best research results and
technologies are achieved for the resources available. I urge the
Committee to establish the USWRP Collaborations Fund with a new
allocation of $20 million in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research, in order to leverage the research and research applications
expertise of this country toward accelerated implementation of the
USWRP goals.
Climate and Global Change Program.--The climate variability
predictions provided by the Climate and Global Change Program are
absolutely critical to related national and international policy
formulation and to efforts to adapt to and mitigate the effects of
long-term climate change. The Program is an integral part of the
interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) that is the
major U.S. contributor to the world's understanding of the global
climate system. The President's request for this program is $73.0
million, down 2.3 percent from the fiscal year 2003 final
appropriation. I urge the Committee to provide the Climate and Global
Change Program $74.7 million at the very least, the level at which this
program is funded for fiscal year 2003.
Phased-Array Radar.--NOAA requests $1 million to develop new
technologies for forecasting and detecting tornadoes and other forms of
severe weather and to disseminate this information to emergency
managers, the media, and the general public for appropriate action.
This initiative will provide the meteorological research community with
the first dedicated phased-array radar facility to collect real-time
data around the clock. When fully implemented, tornado warning lead
times could be doubled from 11 to a life-saving 22 minutes. I urge the
Committee to support the $1 million request for the Phased-Array Radar.
Climate Observations and Services Program.--I urge the Committee to
fund the $55.3 million fiscal year 2004 request for Climate
Observations and Services. A robust observing system is perhaps the
most critical tool for the development of more accurate weather and
climate models. The increase for this program will build the climate
observing system required to support the research, modeling, and
decision support activities for the Administration's Climate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI). I further urge the Committee to support the
President's fiscal year 2004 request of $42.0 million for CCRI, our
nation's key research contribution to the global issue of climate and
environmental change.
Laboratories and Joint Institutes
The 12 NOAA Research Laboratories, located across the country with
field stations around the world, conduct an integrated program of
fundamental research, technology development, and services to improve
understanding of the Earth and its oceans and inland waters, the lower
and upper atmosphere, and the space environment. The Laboratories have
established formal collaborative agreements with universities and non-
profit research institutions to form 11 Joint Institutes to study the
earth's oceans, inland waters, intermountain west, atmosphere, arctic,
and solar-terrestrial environment. I would like to comment on the
fiscal year 2004 request for the following laboratories:
Forecast Systems Laboratory (FSL).--The fiscal year 2004 request
terminates the nation's Wind Profiler Network, 35 stations that provide
hourly wind profiles from the ground to 53,000 feet to operational
weather forecasters and weather models. These data provide invaluable
support in the forecasting of tornadoes, winter storms and flash
floods. I strongly urge the Committee to restore $4.1 million for the
Wind Profiler Network and to thereby fund the Forecast Systems
Laboratory $11.5 million for fiscal year 2004.
Boulder Facilities Operations.--Six of the 12 NOAA Research
Laboratories, one NESDIS Data Center, one of OAR's 11 Joint Institutes,
and the Denver Forecast Office of the National Weather Service (NWS)
are all housed in Boulder at the David Skaggs Research Center. The
fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Bill eliminated rent, maintenance, utility,
and security charges assessed by the General Services Administration
for this building. It is critical that the Committee support Boulder
Facilities Operations at $4.5 million as requested for fiscal year
2004.
Adjustments to Base.--Failure to fund unavoidable increases to the
base budget, such as inflationary costs, changes in costs for salaries,
and good and services, can have a significant impact on the operations
of an agency, and affect productivity over time when those increases
have to be funded out of research programs. I urge the Committee to
restore the $4.5 million that was cut from Adjustments to Base in the
fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Bill, thereby increasing the fiscal year 2004
request to $10.0 million.
Space Environment Center (SEC).--The SEC is the national and world
warning center for disturbances that can affect people and equipment
working in the space environment. It provides real-time monitoring and
forecasting of solar and geophysical events, conducts research in
solar-terrestrial physics, and develops techniques for forecasting
solar and geophysical disturbances. SEC's Space Weather Operations
Center is jointly operated with the U.S. Air Force because DOD's smart
weapons' accuracies, as well as the ability of ships, planes and
special forces units to fix their positions using GPS, are adversely
affected by space weather events. The fiscal year 20043 Omnibus Bill
cut the SEC by $2.25 million, an amount that seems to have been
restored in the fiscal year 2004 request. I urge the Committee to fund
the fiscal year 2004 request of $8.3 million for the Space Environment
Center.
National Weather Service (NWS)
As the nation's vulnerability to weather related hazards rises
because of increasing population, enhanced infrastructure, and
population movement toward cities in threatened regions such as coastal
areas, the NWS strives to mitigate impacts through improved forecasts
and warning systems for the protection of life and property. There are
few agency programs that impact our daily lives and the health of our
economy as profoundly as does the NWS. I urge the Committee to support
the fiscal year 2004 NWS overall request of $820 million. Within NWS, I
would like to comment on the following programs:
NWS Adjustments to Base.--As the largest and most labor-intensive
service within NOAA--70 percent of its budget dedicated to labor--the
NWS depends on full funding of personnel cost increases in order to
sustain current service levels. In the past, reductions in ATBs
resulted in cutbacks in NWS research grants and forecaster training
programs. It is critical that the Committee support the $20.1 million
to fund adjustments to base.
NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction.--The Department of
Commerce, the State of Maryland, and academic community advisors have
all agreed on a shared vision to build a Center of Excellence for
Environmental Research, Education, Applications and Operations in order
to meet NOAA operational requirements to create research synergy in
weather and climate prediction; to accelerate transition of new science
and technology into operations; and to enhance recruitment
opportunities. I ask that the Committee support the request of $10.4
million for this new state-of-the-art facility.
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS).--Seventy-five percent
of all Presidential Disaster Declarations involve flood damages. AHPS
will provide emergency managers with critical data with which to save
lives and property, manage energy and water resources more efficiently,
and enable a more rapid infusion of scientific advances into the
system. Within the NWS Operations, Research, and Facilities account, I
urge the Committee to support the fiscal year 2004 request of $6.1
million.
Aviation Weather.--Weather is the cause of approximately 200 U.S.
general aviation pilot fatalities per year and over 70 percent of U.S.
commercial airline delays that result in tremendous cost to customers
and companies. The Aviation Weather program increases the number of
aviation weather observations; transitions research into operations
more efficiently; and develops and implements new training programs for
forecasters, pilots, and air traffic controllers. I urge the Committee
to support the NWS Aviation Weather initiative at the requested $2.5
million for fiscal year 2004.
NWS Weather and Climate Supercomputing and Backup (Systems
Acquisition).--The critical nature of the separate request for NWS
supercomputing backup cannot be exaggerated. The NWS forecast computing
capabilities are located at a single facility which means that the
nation's severe weather watches and warnings all emanate from one
location that could fail for a number of reasons including faulty
technology, power supply problems, or terrorism. The redundancy,
provided by supercomputing backup, covers those risks and is a critical
component of the Department of Commerce Homeland Security Initiative.
When not in emergency use, the backup provides needed computing time
for weather and climate research. I urge the Committee to support the
fiscal year 2004 request of $19.3 million for NWS Weather and Climate
Supercomputing and $7.2 million to implement the backup computer
system.
Radiosonde Replacement Network.--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. I urge the Committee to
support the fiscal year 2004 request of $6.9 million for the Radiosonde
Replacement Network in the NWS Procurement, Acquisition and
Construction (PAC) account.
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS).--This
interactive computer system integrates all meteorological and
hydrological data, and all satellite and radar data. AWIPS is a
fundamental source of data for the research community and, when
combined with NEXRAD radar, it enables the NWS to issue far more
effective weather warnings and forecasts for the entire country. In the
NWS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account, I urge the
Committee to support the fiscal year 2004 proposed amount of $37.6
million for AWIPS. In the NWS Procurement, Acquisition and Construction
(PAC) account, I urge the Committee to fund AWIPS at the $16.3 million
request at least, an amount level with fiscal year 2003.
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. I urge the Committee to support the request of $1.9
million, the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, for
Cooperative Observer Network maintenance.
Central Forecast Guidance.--The NWS Central Forecast Guidance line
provides most of the funding for the National Centers for Environmental
Prediction (NCEP), nine centers within the NWS that all work 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. Forecasts that reach the public via media outlets
originate at NCEP. In recent years, the centers have not been supported
adequately to process weather data and transfer it into operations. In
order to address this problem, I urge the Committee to support the
fiscal year 2004 request of $45.1 million, a 3.7 percent increase over
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
NESDIS operates this country's space-based component of the global
environment observing system, and manages the world's largest
collection of atmospheric, geophysical, and oceanographic data
representing 85 percent of the data used by the NWS for forecasting
activities. Society depends on NESDIS for data that affect numerous
activities including distributing energy supplies, maintaining
satellite communications, developing global food supplies, increasing
aviation safety, managing natural resources, protecting citizens from
natural hazards, and transporting our nation's armed forces. I urge the
Committee to support the fiscal year 2004 request of $91.2 million for
NESDIS Environmental Satellite Observing Systems, an increase of $5
million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level.
The rich data collected by the NESDIS satellite systems are
acquired, processed, analyzed, archived and disseminated through the
Data Information 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
Centers and Information Services function makes those data useful and
available, so I am disturbed to see that the data management function
is recommended for a $5.3 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. I urge the Committee to
appropriate, at the very least, $5.3 million above the request in order
to restore the NESDIS Data Centers and Information Services to the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $64.4 million in fiscal year 2004.
Educational Partnership Program with Minority Serving Institutions
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 Educational
Partnership Program with Minority Serving Institutions.
On behalf of the UCAR community, I want to thank the Committee for
the important work you do for U.S. scientific research, infrastructure,
education, and training. We understand and appreciate that the nation
is undergoing significant budget pressures at this time, but a strong
nation in the future depends on the investments we make in science and
technology today. We appreciate your attention to the recommendations
of our community concerning the fiscal year 2004 budget of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
______
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 over 200 community radio stations and related organizations across
the country. This includes the new Low Power FM service that has
recently been authorized by the FCC. NFCB is the sole national
organization representing this group of stations, which provide service
in both the smallest communities and largest metropolitan areas of this
country. 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 $70 million in funding for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2004.--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 existing 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 $70 million in funding to ensure that both the on-going
program--currently funded in fiscal year 2003 at $43.4 million--will be
continued, and that the increase to $70 million will be available to
help cover the cost of radio and television converting to digital
transmission. This increase in funding is particularly urgent this year
because the FCC has now endorsed a standard for digital radio
broadcasting and the television conversion deadline is imminent.
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 has now approved a standard for digital radio
transmission. The initial conversion of radio stations is being
concentrated in 13 seed markets. The Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) is using some of its previously appropriated digital
funds to help public stations in these markets convert to digital,
conduct additional research on AM radio conversion, and work with radio
receiver manufacturers to build in the capacity to receive a 2nd audio
channel. The development of 2nd audio channels will potentially double
the public service that public radio can provide, particularly to
unserved and underserved communities. This initial funding from CPB
will only help a small number of the stations that will ultimately need
to either convert or be left behind while the world goes digital.
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 2000
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. Advance 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.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
Program
The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program
respectfully requests that Congress appropriate for fiscal year 2004,
$50 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 terrorism
activity, 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 6,300 local, state, and federal law
enforcement member agencies across the nation comprising over 675,000
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
3.9 million times per month during fiscal year 2002. 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, Australia,
and England. 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 crucial force in fighting terrorism, 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.
Interagency 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.
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 RISS Program promotes federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement information sharing. RISS is the mechanism that state and
federal law enforcement agencies are using to leverage their resources
and existing systems for sharing sensitive but unclassified
information. RISS has entered into a partnership with the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to electronically connect all
of the HIDTA's to riss.net for communications and information sharing.
Currently, 15 HIDTA's are electronically connected as nodes to riss.net
and RISS is working to complete the connection of the remaining
HIDTA's. Nine state agencies are currently connected as nodes on
riss.net. An additional 15 state law enforcement agencies are pending
connection as nodes to share information, including terrorism and
homeland security information, using 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 entered into a partnership and have electronically connected
EPIC as a node to riss.net to capture clandestine laboratory seizure
data from RISS state and local law enforcement member agencies. RISS is
currently working with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), to connect all of the BLM offices to riss.net.
Other systems connected to riss.net are the Law Enforcement
Intelligence Unit (LEIU) and the National Drug Pointer Index (NDPIX).
The National White Collar Crime Center (NW\3\C) and the Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) are currently pending connection to
riss.net as nodes.
During 2002, officials of the FBI Law Enforcement Online (LEO)
system and the RISS system achieved interconnection of the two systems
for distribution of sensitive but unclassified homeland security
information to authorized users of both LEO and RISS. In addition, the
Executive Office of the United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the RISS
Centers initiated actions to connect staff to riss.net at each of the
93 U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAO) Anti-Terrorism Task Forces throughout
the United States.
RISS is also expanding its resources to deliver the RISS Anti-
Terrorism Information Exchange (RISS ATIX) to provide access through
riss.net to additional groups of users for secure interagency
communication, information sharing, and dissemination of terrorist
threat information. These additional groups of users, referred to as
RISS ATIX participants, will include public service, public safety,
emergency management, utility, and other critical infrastructure
personnel that have traditionally not been served by RISS. RISS ATIX
participants will be assigned restricted access to certain specific
RISS services and resources as appropriate in consideration of their
roles with regard to terrorism and disasters.
All of these above mentioned state and federal agencies are
integrating with and using the riss.net secure nationwide
communications backbone to share criminal intelligence and alerts and
homeland security information within their own agencies and among the
other agencies. RISS needs funds to purchase hardware and software to
support these agency system connections to riss.net to continue to
provide and improve access for sharing information for law enforcement
agencies across the country. In addition, RISS has developed RISS ATIX
to provide first responders and critical infrastructure personnel with
a secure means via riss.net to communicate, share information, and
receive terrorist threat information. RISS is operating an
unprecedented nationwide network for communicating critical information
in a secure environment to both law enforcement and other first
responders. To support the increased needs of these personnel and
continue to maintain the RISS system and demand for RISS services and
resources, RISS is requesting an increase in funding to $50 million for
2004.
RISS continues to promote interagency investigations by improving
capabilities for member agencies to quickly and easily access RISS
databases and resources by expanding the enrollment of member agencies
for access to riss.net through distribution of security hardware and
software. 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, 2002, the number of criminal
subjects maintained in the RISSIntel intelligence databases for all
Centers combined was 1,079,369 with 258,907 new subjects being added in
2002. The combined databases of all six RISS Centers also maintained
data on 1,712,307 locations, vehicles, weapons, and telephone numbers
for a grand total of 2,791,676 data entries available for search. For
the twelve-month period January through December 2002, the total number
of inquiries by law enforcement member agencies to the RISSIntel
database for all six regional intelligence centers combined was
766,845. These inquiries resulted in hits or information to assist law
enforcement agencies in their criminal cases. All RISS Centers combined
delivered 19,777 analytical products to member agencies in support of
their investigation and prosecution efforts in 2002.
This support of law enforcement has had a dramatic impact on the
success of their investigations. Over the three-year period 2000-2002,
RISS generated a return by member agencies that resulted in 10,024
arrests, seizure of narcotics valued at almost $141 million, seizure of
over $13 million in currency, and recovery or seizure of property
valued at over $25 million. In addition, almost $3 million was seized
through RICO civil procedures. In the 22-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 over $12.7 billion dollars in
recoveries at a total cost that approximates 2.72 percent of that
amount, or a $37 return for every dollar spent.
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.
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 $50 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. The state and local
agencies require more, not less, funding to fight the nation's crime/
drug problem.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of The Ocean Conservancy
The Ocean Conservancy (TOC) is pleased to share its views regarding
the marine conservation programs in the budgets of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) and the Department of State's
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs. TOC requests that this statement be included in the official
record for the fiscal year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary
and Related Agencies bill. TOC cannot overstate the importance of this
Subcommittee in advancing marine conservation and greatly appreciates
the funding provided in fiscal year 2003. TOC recognizes the
constraints this Subcommittee faces this year and urges you to continue
to make ocean conservation a top priority.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Conservation Trust Fund
Passed by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust Fund (also
referred to as the Conservation Spending Category) is a groundbreaking
bipartisan accomplishment and represents a major advancement in
conservation funding. TOC is grateful that this Subcommittee has upheld
its commitment to funding the Conservation Trust Fund over the last
three fiscal years and calls for your continued commitment in fiscal
year 2004 by dedicating $520 million for critical ocean and coastal
conservation activities within NOAA. We also urge you to protect the
integrity of the trust fund by limiting its uses for net increases
rather than a substitute for base funding.
Coral Reef Conservation
NOAA plays a critical role in protecting coral reefs, serves on the
successful Interagency Coral Reef Task Force and has major
responsibilities for implementing the National Action Plan to Conserve
Coral Reefs. Through monitoring, mapping, restoration and outreach
activities, NOAA works with state, territory, local and other parties
to reduce land-based pollution, overfishing, diseases, and other
threats to coral reefs. TOC is disappointed that the Subcommittee cut
funding for coral reefs in fiscal year 2003 and respectfully requests
that at a minimum, funding be restored in fiscal year 2004. In
addition, $2 million above the Administration's request is desperately
needed to support local efforts to protect coral reefs and should be
directed to the Coral Reef Conservation Fund established by the Coral
Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-562). This funding will
leverage an additional $2 to $4 million in matching resources through
partnerships with local, state and territory governments, universities,
the private sector and others to fund on-the-ground coral reef
conservation and management activities in the United States and its
territories. This funding is one of The Ocean Conservancy's highest
priorities.
National Ocean Service
Marine Sanctuary Program
Our nation's 13 sanctuaries encompass almost 18,000 square miles of
our most significant marine resources. TOC requests the Subcommittee
provide $37.8 million for sanctuary operations, $2 million above the
Administration's request. This increase is critical to reducing
staffing shortages and supporting conservation, community outreach,
research, and education programs, and updating sanctuary management
plans as required by law. TOC also supports the Administration's
request of $10 million for construction, particularly for interpretive
facilities to educate the general public about the role of the federal
government in managing our nation's ocean and coastal resources.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
TOC greatly appreciates this Subcommittee's $1 million increase in
fiscal year 2003 to support NOAA's MPAs initiative and requests an
additional $1 million increase in fiscal year 2004. This $5 million
will allow NOAA to work more effectively with federal and state
agencies and other partners to acquire data for the ongoing MPA
inventory and support the recently formed Marine Protected Areas
Advisory Committee and its working groups. This increase will allow
NOAA to better assist stakeholders, including states, the National Park
Service and others by holding regional workshops and providing training
and technical assistance to determine how best to design and implement
MPAs.
Nonpoint Pollution Implementation Grants
Nonpoint source pollution continues to be the nation's largest
source of water pollution. There were over 13,410 closings and
advisories at U.S. beaches in the year 2001. TOC supports the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 request of $10 million to help
coastal states and territories, with approved nonpoint plans, continue
to make progress in implementing their priority activities.
National Marine Fisheries Service
The Ocean Conservancy remains concerned about the state of our
nation's fisheries. As the $100 million for fisheries disaster
assistance in fiscal year 2003 demonstrates, we must do a better job
managing our fisheries. Below is what TOC believes are NMFS's most
pressing needs.
Expanding Fisheries Stock Assessments
The status of roughly two-thirds of our commercially caught ocean
fish populations is unknown due in large part to lack of funding for
basic research and regular stock assessments. We applaud the
Subcommittee's decision to increase stock assessment funding to $17
million in fiscal year 2003 and urge that this trend continues with $25
million in fiscal year 2004. Doing so will help reduce the backlog in
research days-at-sea and give managers baseline information critical to
managing our fisheries. This funding is one of The Ocean Conservancy's
highest priorities.
Fisheries Observers
Along with stock assessments, 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. TOC recommends $25 million for
fisheries observers in fiscal year 2004, $5 million above the
Administration's request and encourages the Subcommittee to prioritize
the following three programs.
Bycatch Observers
TOC fully supports the Administration's $2.8 million initiative to
reduce bycatch. The $2 million within this initiative for bycatch
observers will support approximately 2,000 observer days-at-sea,
thereby enhancing the collection of bycatch data from commercial and
recreational fishing vessels. Two fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico in
desperate need of increased observer coverage are the bottom longline
fishery and the shrimp otter trawl fishery. Longlines capture a variety
of ocean wildlife besides the reef fish they target, including marine
birds, sea turtles and soft corals. The shrimp fishery is believed to
be the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, but efforts to monitor
the effort and catch are limited. With revised turtle excluder device
regulations going into effect in August, it is critical that an
observer program be established.
National Observer Program
While encouraged by the Administration's request to expand the
national observer program, TOC believes that $7 million is still
inadequate and recommends additional support for NMFS to meet its
national observer needs.
West Coast Observers
TOC respectfully requests that the Subcommittee, at the minimum,
return funding for West Coast Observers to the fiscal year 2002 level
of $4.0 million.
Enforcement/Surveillance and Vessel Monitoring System
In addition to better data, enforcement of our fishery management
laws is critical. Unfortunately, lack of funding has hampered NMFS's
ability to kept pace with the need. TOC urges $46.9 million in fiscal
year 2004 to address this shortfall so that more officers can be hired
to better enforce our fisheries management laws. TOC supports expanding
the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) program. While we are pleased that
the Subcommittee provided a slight increase in VMS in fiscal year 2003,
we urge that the President's request of $7.4 million be fully supported
in fiscal year 2004.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Given the need to better understand the impacts of fishing and
other activities on EFH, and the need to more fully comply with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's requirement
to minimize impacts to those habitats, TOC believes that increased
funding is crucial and requests $12.5 million in fiscal year 2004.
Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program
TOC greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support of $2 million in
fiscal year 2003 for this unique cooperative state and federal
fisheries data collection program. We request $3 million in fiscal year
2004 so that this program can be expanded and better implemented along
the East Coast, thereby helping to ensure that data collection methods
are more consistent and reliable.
Highly Migratory Shark Fisheries Research Program
This effective multi-regional collaborative effort conducts
research on shark and ray populations in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Atlantic, and the Pacific. Information developed from this program has
provided critical information for assessing the status of shark
populations and informing better management. TOC greatly appreciates
the Subcommittee's rejection of the Administration's proposed cut in
fiscal year 2003 and requests at least level funding in fiscal year
2004.
Pacific Highly Migratory Species Research
TOC supports funding for this program, believes the
Administration's request of $750,000 is inadequate and requests $1.5
million in fiscal year 2004. Specifically, funding is needed to conduct
stock assessments and biological studies and improve bycatch mitigation
techniques for these fisheries.
Marine Mammal Protection
TOC believes the lack of adequate resources has severely hampered
NMFS's ability to effectively implement the MMPA and requests $9.1
million in fiscal year 2004, $2 million above the Administration's
request. This increase is necessary to fund top priority studies
identified by the take reduction teams: to design and implement fishery
management plans that will not endanger marine mammals; conduct
research on population trends, health, and demographics; and to carry
out education and enforcement programs. It would also allow research
into the causes of strandings and die-offs and identification of
mitigation measures to prevent such deaths in the future.
Bottlenose Dolphin Research
In response to the more than 100 bottlenose dolphin mortalities in
the gillnet fishery off North Carolina (over four times allowable
levels), the Atlantic Bottlenose Take Reduction Team was established in
2001. TOC recommends $3 million in fiscal year 2004 to reduce dolphin
mortalities by refining population estimates, conducting bycatch
estimates and increasing observer coverage.
Endangered Species
NMFS bears significant responsibility for administering the
Endangered Species Act and is responsible not only for the recovery of
already-listed species such as Northern Atlantic Right Whales (see
below), smalltooth sawfish, Steller sea lions, and all species of sea
turtles found in U.S. waters, but also for responding to listing
petitions in a timely fashion, consulting with federal agencies on
proposed actions that may affect listed species, designating critical
habitat, and implementing recovery plans. TOC is concerned about NMFS's
ability to meet its responsibilities under the ESA and respectfully
requests the Subcommittee increase NMFS's ESA base funding by $2
million to meet its fiscal year 2004 demands.
North Atlantic Right Whales
With approximately only 300 North Atlantic Right Whales still
alive, funding is needed to improve our understanding of right whales
and to develop fishing technologies to reduce entanglements. TOC thanks
the Subcommittee for its support of $10 million in fiscal year 2003 and
requests level funding in fiscal year 2004.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
International Fisheries Commission Account
TOC requests $200,000 for the State Department to support
implementation of two landmark agreements, the Inter-American
Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC) and
the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of
Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South East
Asia (IO). To date, nine nations, including Brazil, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, and Venezuela have
ratified the IAC. To date, 23 countries have signed the IO agreement.
Since ratifying the IAC and becoming a signatory of the IO agreement in
2000, the United States has played a leading role in the establishment
of these instruments and continued leadership and support will ensure
their early momentum continues.
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
TOC requests that the Subcommittee support the Marine Mammal
Commission at $1.895 million in fiscal year 2004, per the
Administration's request.
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL RIDERS
TOC urges this Subcommittee to not attach any anti-environmental
rider to this or any other appropriations bill. In the past, riders
have been used by Members of Congress to rollback environmental
protection and prevent NOAA from advancing marine conservation.
These programs and issues 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
2004. Thank you for considering our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of The Asia Foundation
The importance and continuing relevance of the Asia Foundation's
mission and mandate have been underscored by the events of September 11
and the war on terrorism: to develop institutions of governance,
including constitutional frameworks, legislative branch and judiciary;
support civil discourse and conflict resolution; expand economic
opportunity to improve the quality of life and give more people a stake
in stability; and promote better understanding between the United
States and the countries of Asia.
The Asia Foundation is gratified by the confidence of the Congress
in its programs, as demonstrated by an increased appropriation of
$10.44 million for fiscal year 2003, $1 million above the
Administration's request. While the Administration has endorsed the
work of The Asia Foundation by requesting an appropriation of $9.25
million for fiscal year 2004, the Foundation respectfully hopes that
the Congress will once again add to its funding, given the unparalleled
new challenges facing Asia and The Asia Foundation's distinctive
capacity to address them. As the Subcommittee knows, The Asia
Foundation implements concrete programs in Asia that improve governance
and legal reform, protect human rights, promote economic reform and
encourage peaceful, cooperative international relations.
In the face of growing anti-Americanism and the threats of rising
extremism in countries with predominantly Muslim populations in Asia,
where over 70 percent of the world's Muslims live, it is more important
than ever to address the root causes of persistent poverty, lack of
opportunity, and loss of faith in local leaders and institutions. These
new circumstances in Asia highlight the importance and value of The
Asia Foundation's programs. The Foundation is the only American
organization with a distinctive history of fifty years of presence and
engagement in Asia, especially in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia,
the front line states in the war on terrorism.
OVERVIEW
The United States and Asia both face new challenges, complicated by
the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the instability likely to
occur in its aftermath. More than ever, the United States must support
political stability, and economic reform, and give attention to
countries where recent events have exacerbated U.S. bilateral
relations, in countries that have been traditional allies of the United
States, as well as in the countries with predominantly Muslim
populations in Asia. Working together with Asian organizations as a
trusted partner through a network of 17 offices in Asia, The Asia
Foundation is the only longstanding American nongovernmental,
nonpartisan organization with local credibility, a nuanced
understanding of the issues facing each country, and unparalleled
access and relationships with government, nongovernmental groups, and
the private sector. In addition to the importance of these programs in
the lives of people of these countries, the Foundation's efforts also
make an important and tangible contribution to public diplomacy for the
United States.
THE ASIA FOUNDATION'S MISSION
The Asia Foundation's core objectives are central to U.S. interests
in the Asia-Pacific region.
--Democracy, human rights and the 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, including women's rights and
opportunity;
--Open Trade and Investment: supporting open trade, investment and
economic reform at the regional and national levels;
--Peaceful and Stable Regional Relations: promoting U.S.-Asian
dialogue on security, regional economic cooperation, law and
human rights.
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 Asia.
Foundation assistance supports training, technical assistance, and seed
funding for new, local organizations, all aimed at promoting reform,
building Asian capacity, and strengthening U.S.-Asia relations.
Foundation grantees can be found in every sector in Asia, leaders of
government and industry and at the grass roots level, in the
increasingly diverse civil society of Asia. The Foundation is
distinctive in this role, not only providing the technical assistance
necessary, as in the case of the drafting of the Afghan constitution,
but also in providing grants that cover nuts and bolts necessities to
support that effort, such as reference materials, equipment and
administrative support costs for the Constitutional Commission. The
Asia Foundation is a well recognized American organization, but its
programs are grounded in Asia, helping to solve local problems in
cooperation with Asian partners.
PROGRAMS
Examples of programs include:
--Legislative Development.--The Foundation has contributed to the
development of legislatures in 17 countries in Asia through
technical assistance, training members and staff and
facilitating interaction with the nongovernmental sector. The
Foundation is the only American organization providing
legislative training on responsible legislative practice, and
orientation for all four newly elected provincial assemblies in
Pakistan. The Foundation is also the only American organization
providing technical assistance to the Constitutional Commission
in Afghanistan for the drafting of the new constitution, the
public consultation and Constitutional Loya Jirga process.
--Civil Society.--The Foundation is the single largest supporter of
the nongovernmental 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. In Cambodia, the Foundation
continues to be the largest supporter of human rights,
environment and research and policy NGOs in Cambodia. The
Foundation's Pakistan programs support community based
organizations that provide educational services in areas where
none exist, particularly in the economically distressed border
areas of the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP). The Foundation
also supports new NGO activities in Afghanistan, such as
ASCHIANA which provides education for girls and young women
denied schooling under the Taliban through a cooperative
project with the National Geographic Society.
--Human Rights, Conflict and Islam.--The Foundation's human rights
programs promote the protection and advancement of human rights
through support of nongovernmental and governmental human
rights efforts at the local, regional and national levels. The
Foundation's programs focus on human rights education, the
development of monitoring groups, forensic training to
investigate past abuses, media training, guides on
international human rights standards, conflict reporting for
journalists, programs to prevent trafficking and violence
against women and alternative dispute resolution programs in
conflict areas. The Foundation's twenty year history of working
with mainstream Muslim groups in Indonesia, Pakistan and
Mindanao in the Philippines makes it uniquely positioned to
encourage programs that promote moderate views, religious
tolerance, peace, conflict management and the rights of women
under Islam, including the use of Islamic scriptures to
communicate messages of tolerance and non-violence. These
innovative and sensitive programs can only be accomplished
through an on the ground knowledge of the context facing
mainstream Muslims, and through partnerships built on trust.
The Foundation gives special attention to the troubled areas of
Indonesia through support for local human rights efforts in
Aceh, Papua and most recently, in the Maluku Islands. Programs
include media campaigns through radio and television by
moderate groups to promote pluralism and tolerance in conflict
prone areas and the utilization of mosque youth networks to
educate and strengthen networks for democracy and pluralistic
Islam.
--Legal Reform.--In East Timor, the Foundation provided technical
assistance for the drafting of the constitution and new
legislation, and for increased access to justice for citizens,
by involving civil society and public consultation in the law
making process. In China, the Foundation supports legal aid
services and popular legal education in some of China's poorest
provinces, including those with minority populations such as
Yunnan and Xinjiang, and for millions of migrant women workers
in Guangdong. In Nepal, the Foundation piloted mediation
projects in western Nepal, areas under the heavy influence of
the Maoist rebels, and continues to expand community mediation
programs, legal reform within the courts, establishment of
legal information systems, and the development of watchdog
citizens' groups to raise awareness of corruption and
misconduct. The Foundation supports reform of the Supreme Court
in Indonesia, which has included civil society input in an
unprecedented step to reform case assignment, audit its
procedures and processes, and improve the quality of the
judicial appointment process.
--Economic Growth and Opportunity.--Small and medium enterprises are
a vital engine for economic growth, providing employment and
opportunity for millions throughout the region. The
Foundation's programs help to reform the environment for small
business growth in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Sri
Lanka by removing policy barriers and regulatory red tape,
reducing corruption, and providing a voice for small
entrepreneurs through support for business associations and
business-government dialogue. The Foundation funds efforts to
improve corporate governance in Korea, China, Japan, and the
Philippines.
--International Relations.--The Foundation continues to invest in
young leaders through diplomatic training programs in U.S.
universities for Chinese foreign affairs staff, fellowships for
Vietnamese and Indian diplomats, and study programs for
Southeast Asian young leaders. Programs also include support
for the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific
(CSCAP), training programs for compliance with trade agreements
and the WTO for Chinese and Vietnamese officials, and track II
programs on cross-straits relations and Northeast Asian
security.
CONCLUSION
As the preceding examples of The Asia Foundation's work emphasize,
the Foundation is a field-based organization that supports projects in
Asia that build the capacity of Asian institutions and support reform
efforts, while at the same time maintaining close links with the U.S.
foreign policy community. We are first and foremost a grant making
organization. The Foundation has consistently received national
recognition for its efficient grant-to-operating ratio, reflecting its
commitment to maximizing the impact of its programs in Asia, while
keeping expenses low. We are not a research organization or an academic
institution, nor are we Washington based. We operate on the ground in
Asia as an accepted, trusted partner and supporter of Asian reform
efforts that simultaneously support and reinforce American political,
economic, and security interests. We partner in our programs with
American and international public and private organizations to leverage
our resources and make investments pay off. The Foundation's
partnership with the Microsoft Corporation on the Cambodian Information
Centers, the first project of its kind to expand Internet and media
resources to all 22 provinces of the country, is but one example.
Public funding is essential to the Foundation's mission. While the
Foundation has made gains in expanding private funding, the flexibility
and reliability that public funding lends to the Foundation's efforts
are critical. As an organization committed to U.S. 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 funds are 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 flexibility. 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 programs related to the needs of
the Ministry of Women's Affairs in Afghanistan in 2001 and the National
Human Rights Commission office in Aceh, during the height of the
violence in the conflict-prone province in 2002.
Budget constraints resulted in significant reductions in the
Foundation's annual appropriation in 1996. The current requested level
for fiscal year 2004 is still well below the Foundation's $15 million
annual appropriation during the decade prior to 1996. The $15 million
level has been authorized consistently by the Congressional authorizers
in recent years. We have worked hard to manage our budget, reduce staff
and expenditures, increase our efficiency, and diversify our funding
sources. We have struggled to maintain our country office presence in
Asia, although budget cuts did force closure of the Malaysia office in
1996.
But commitment to a field operation is not without risk, as seen in
the situation facing U.S. embassies abroad. Now more than ever, the
Foundation and its supporters believe that its critical and most
important asset is its field office network in Asia, enabling the
Foundation to address critical development and reform on the ground,
especially in critical front line states such as Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and Indonesia. Increased security measures to protect Foundation staff
have been necessary, and Foundation offices all have contingency
evacuation measures in place. Maintaining overseas offices costs more
than maintaining operations within the United States and the new
demands to ensure adequate security have added to this cost. Today, we
face serious budgetary constraints. We cannot forsake the safety of our
staff, but at the same time, we are, as always, committed to ensuring
that the maximum possible amount of appropriated funds are dedicated to
programs on the ground.
In closing, we believe that we have an opportunity and the
obligation to demonstrate America's strong commitment to working with
Asian leaders to assure the security and well being of the people of
Asia. The Asia Foundation's programs represent a distinctive and
positive American response to the challenges facing Asia today,
contributing to the development of stable societies and advancing the
interests of the United States in the region. At a time of rapid change
and uncertainty, additional funding would enable the Foundation to
expand its role and its programs to help meet these challenges.
______
Prepared Statement of the Investment Company Institute
The Investment Company Institute \1\ appreciates this opportunity
to submit testimony to the Subcommittee in support of the fiscal year
2004 Appropriations request for the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). The Institute would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
consistent past efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Investment Company Institute is the national association of
the American investment company industry. Its membership includes 8,929
open-end investment companies (``mutual funds''), 553 closed-end
investment companies and 6 sponsors of unit investment trusts. Its
mutual fund members have assets of about $6.322 trillion, accounting
for approximately 95 percent of total industry assets, and 90.2 million
individual shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual funds are one of the primary savings and investment vehicles
for middle-income Americans. Today, more than 95 million investors in
over 54 million U.S. households own mutual fund shares. Since 1990, the
percentage of U.S. retirement assets held in mutual funds has more than
quadrupled. Moreover, most mutual fund investors are ordinary
Americans; the median household income of fund shareholders is
approximately $62,000. These millions of average Americans deserve
continued vigilant regulatory oversight of mutual funds. For this
reason, sufficient funding of the SEC should be a priority. The
Institute urges Congress to provide appropriations at a level
sufficient to ensure the SEC's ability to fulfill its regulatory
mandate.
The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes SEC funding
at a level of $841.5 million. This greatly exceeds last year's
appropriation of $711.7 million. The Institute supports this enhanced
level of funding to support the SEC's operations, especially those of
the Division of Investment Management, which regulates the mutual fund
industry. Such resources will help the SEC to carry out its many
important initiatives, which include, among other things, adopting
requirements for improved shareholder reports, analyzing the
feasibility of requiring new compliance related rules for investment
companies and investment advisers, finalizing rules to combat money
laundering, and finalizing amendments to the mutual fund advertising
rules.
The recommended enhanced level of funding also will permit the SEC
to monitor compliance with the many significant new requirements
adopted as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which include,
among others, disclosure regarding codes of ethics for senior executive
officers and the presence of financial experts on audit committees,
certification of financial and other information, independence
standards for public company auditors, and standards of conduct for
corporate attorneys. Moreover, it will permit the SEC to fulfill its
mandate to oversee the operation of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (PCAOB), including the ratification of fundamental
rules and procedures for the PCAOB. We also are pleased that H.R. 658/
S. 496, ``The Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing Act of
2003,'' has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. This bill
would permit the SEC more flexibility in its hiring process, making it
easier for the SEC to hire the staff it needs to carry out these
additional responsibilities.
Several important SEC initiatives indicate an enhanced workload for
the Division of Investment Management. First, the Division will be
responsible for monitoring compliance with the new requirements related
to proxy voting. Second, the Division will be responsible for providing
the SEC with a report on the hedge fund industry, assisting with SEC
hearings to be conducted in connection with this endeavor, and
analyzing the need for, and potentially developing, new regulations
related to hedge funds. Third, the Division will be instrumental in
responding to Congressional inquiries related to mutual fund issues.
These important initiatives, which will affect millions of American
investors, will require additional staff to see that they are properly
analyzed and to develop appropriate recommendations.
Adequate funding is also needed for the SEC's new enhanced risk-
based inspection program, which began in fiscal year 2003 and will
continue in fiscal year 2004. For investment companies and investment
advisers, this means that those with relatively higher risk profiles
will be examined every two years, while all remaining firms will be
examined no less frequently than every four years. These more frequent
inspections are a significant improvement over the five-year inspection
cycle for investment advisers and investment companies that existed
prior to fiscal year 2003, and the SEC's appropriations should be
sufficient to continue this important initiative.
Finally, adequate funding is essential to the SEC's efforts to
educate investors. The SEC's Internet website contains many sources of
important information for investors, including an on-line publication
explaining mutual funds and investor alerts that help investors avoid
scams and securities frauds. These and other SEC programs assist
investors to understand the capital markets and establish realistic
expectations about market performance. This is an integral part of the
agency's mission to protect investors.
In order to accomplish these worthy objectives and to continue to
function as an effective regulatory agency, we support that the SEC be
funded at the level requested by the Administration and supported by
Chairman Donaldson.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
This year, American Rivers was joined by more than 400 national,
regional and local organizations concerned with river conservation
throughout the United States \1\ in calling for significantly increased
funding for the following programs in the Commerce, Justice, State and
the Judiciary (CJS) Appropriations bill. I urge that these requests be
incorporated in the CJS Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These groups have endorsed the ``River Budget for fiscal year
2004'', a report of national funding priorities for local river
conservation. A list of groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed
at http://www.americanrivers.org/riverbudget/default.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Salmon Plan for the Columbia and Snake rivers
Several Members of Congress from the Northwest, as well as the
Administration, have pledged to work to restore twelve Endangered
Species Act listed stocks of Snake and Columbia river salmon without
partially removing the lower four Snake River dams. Congress can help
honor that commitment by funding the necessary salmon recovery
measures. More than two years since the release of the 2000 Federal
Salmon Plan for the Columbia and Snake rivers, federal agencies have
failed to fulfill nearly three-quarters of its requirements.
The Salmon Plan relies primarily on improving tributary and estuary
habitat and reforming hatchery and harvest practices. While over 500
fisheries scientists and most conservationists believe that partial
removal of the lower Snake River dams must be the cornerstone of a
larger strategy to recover Snake River salmon, many elements of the
Salmon Plan are also necessary to achieve salmon recovery.
If the Salmon Plan's non-breach recovery package is not funded and
implemented, or if these actions do not yield the needed biological
benefit for Snake River stocks, the plan contemplates seeking
congressional authorization--after a ``check-in'' this September--to
partially remove the four lower Snake River dams or pursue other
stronger recovery measures.
Inadequate federal funding is a major reason that implementation of
the Salmon Plan has fallen so far behind. Full funding for fiscal year
2004 will require $529.3 million distributed among ten different
federal agencies through five different appropriations bills. The CJS
Appropriations bill governs funding for the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), which is charged with pursuing and administering the
Salmon Plan's crucial science and monitoring activities, as well as
implementing hatchery and harvest reform measures. The administration
has proposed increasing the NMFS budget for Columbia River salmon by
approximately 50 percent this year, from the fiscal year 2003 level of
$26.2 million to $39.7 million in fiscal year 2004. While this increase
would be helpful, internal NMFS documents estimate that fully
implementing the Salmon Plan would require an increase of closer to 200
percent.
To ensure full development of the scientific standards, reforms,
and restoration activities required by the Federal Salmon Plan,
Congress should fund NMFS Columbia Basin salmon programs at $69.8
million.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
Pacific salmon are a national treasure with enormous economic,
cultural, and environmental significance in the states of Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska. A century ago, salmon were an
anchor of the region's economy. Unfortunately, past and present
mismanagement of our rivers, lands, and salmon fisheries have caused
populations of salmon to decline 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 imperiled runs of chinook,
coho, sockeye, and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout, is the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, funded through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the past three 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 urge Congress to make the State of
Idaho and Snake River salmon and steelhead eligible to benefit from
this program as well.
By increasing funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
in fiscal year 2004, Congress can help restore 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 will also
allow the United States to satisfy treaty obligations with Northwest
Indian tribes and Canada.
We urge Congress to increase funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund to no less than $200 million in fiscal year 2004.
Fisheries Habitat Restoration
The fisheries habitat provided by estuaries and coastal wetlands
serves many essential functions for communities across the nation.
Eighty to 90 percent of all recreational fish catch and 75 percent of
all commercial harvest depends upon healthy coastal and estuarine
habitats. More than half the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states
have been lost, and almost 40 percent of estuarine habitat has been
impaired by damming and diverting countless rivers and streams.
The Fisheries Habitat Restoration program, funded through the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Restoration
Center, reaches out to local constituencies to accomplish on-the-
ground, community-based projects to restore estuaries and coastal
habitats. Partnerships and local involvement are fundamental to the
success of this program. Partners typically match federal dollars 1:1
and leverage those dollars up to 10 times more through state and local
participation. To date, the program has funded 600 projects in 25
states, promoting fishery habitat restoration in coastal areas with a
grassroots, bottom-up approach.
We urge Congress to provide the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Restoration
Program with $18,500,000 to help more communities restore and protect
and restore the health of their estuaries and coastal habitats.
Hydropower Relicensing
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would greatly benefit
from additional funding to address the growing number of hydropower
dams that need renewal of their operating licenses from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under the Federal Power Act, NMFS
plays a role in setting license conditions to protect and conserve
anadromous (sea-run) fisheries such as Pacific and Atlantic salmon,
steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout, and shad. Licenses are nearing
expiration at hundreds of dams around the country, and workloads are
increasing for NMFS and other resource agencies. Increasing NMFS's
limited hydropower relicensing budget would help ensure a more
efficient licensing process, benefit the hydropower industry, and
further efforts to protect and restore our nation's anadromous
fisheries.
Congress should provide NMFS with a $2 million increase to its
Habitat Conservation line item specifically for hydropower relicensing.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for International Educational and
Cultural Exchange
The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony in support of the
educational and cultural exchange programs administered by the
Department of State.
The Alliance is the leading policy voice of the U.S. exchange
community, and has worked closely with the subcommittee on exchange
issues. We note with gratitude the subcommittee's role in increasing
exchange appropriations in recent years.
The Alliance comprises 67 nongovernmental organizations, with
nearly 8000 staff and 1.25 million volunteers throughout the United
States. Through its members, the Alliance supports the international
interests of 3300 American institutions of higher education.
With grassroots networks reaching all 50 states, Alliance members
help advance the U.S. national interest by putting a human face on
American foreign policy, transmitting American values, fostering
economic ties with rapidly developing overseas markets, and assisting
individuals with the development of critical foreign language, cross-
cultural, and area studies expertise. Our members also leverage
considerable private resources--in cash and in kind--in support of
these critical programs.
By engaging a very broad array of American individuals and
institutions in the conduct of our foreign affairs, exchange programs
build both enhanced understanding and a web of productive contacts
between Americans and the rest of the world.
Our requests for the fiscal year 2004 exchange appropriation fall
into three broad categories:
Core Exchange Budget--Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs
As a nation, we need to provide more opportunities for emerging
leaders around the world to experience first-hand our society, our
values, and our people. The Alliance therefore urges the subcommittee
to provide substantial increases in funding for exchange programs.
While appropriations for these programs have moved up in recent years,
this account still lags well behind its historic levels in constant
dollars due to the deep cuts of the mid-nineties. Coupled with the
increases in fixed program costs such as airfare and accommodation,
reduced appropriations have resulted in significantly diminished
participant levels in programs consistently cited by our embassies as
one of their most effective means of advancing U.S. policy interests.
For example, the Bush Administration's request for the State
Department's core exchanges in fiscal year 2004, excluding funding for
programs provided for under the Freedom Support Act and SEED, appears
to be level with the current year appropriation of $245 million. In
fact, we understand that this ``level funding'' amounts to a reduction
of approximately $7.5 million available for programs, when one factors
in increased costs.
While exchange budgets have risen in recent years thanks to the
leadership of this subcommittee, State Department figures for the core
exchange budget--excluding Freedom Support Act and SEED funding--
indicate that exchange funding has declined 40 percent in constant
dollars over a 10-year period (1993-2002).
As our experiences since September 11, 2001, demonstrate clearly,
we need public diplomacy and exchanges more than ever. We need to build
trust and understanding for our people and our policy goals not just in
the Muslim world--an effort that will be of critical importance--but
around the globe. To win the war on terrorism and to rebuild Iraq, we
will need the help of our friends and allies in every region of the
world. This is a time to intensify and expand our public diplomacy, and
we believe there is strong bipartisan support in Congress to do exactly
that.
We therefore urge the subcommittee to fund the Department of
State's core exchange budget at $286 million, the level authorized by
the 107th Congress. This amount would provide for targeted, meaningful
growth in every region of the world in support of our most important
foreign policy objectives.
Exchanges with the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central
Europe
We note that the Bush Administration budget request moves funding
for exchange programs authorized by the Freedom Support Act (FSA) and
SEED into the CJS bill for the first time. If the appropriations
subcommittees agree with this change and the CJS subcommittee includes
these programs in its bill, we urge you to substantially increase
funding over the Administration's request.
The Administration has requested $100 million for these programs.
Our best estimates suggest that this level represents a cut of
approximately 28 percent. We hope the subcommittee will agree that this
reduction is unwise in regions of the world of such strategic
importance to the United States. This is particularly true when one
considers the effectiveness and impact of these exchange programs.
We urge the subcommittee to fund FSA and SEED programs at an
overall level of $145 million, which would allow for increases in
program costs and a modest boost for these high priority activities.
A central aspect to the opening of the region has been the
opportunity for the peoples of these countries to see how a democratic
society functions, based on the principles of democracy and a free
market economy. In recent Congressional testimony, former U.S.
Ambassador to the Russian Federation James W. Collins said, ``Efforts
at reform in business and education--are just beginning to take hold.
We're just starting to create an established and recognizable critical
mass of individuals able to sustain our national interest in fostering
reforms in these countries. Now is not the time to be reducing these
efforts, particularly with Russia and Ukraine, whose challenges remain
paramount. I believe there is no greater priority in Eurasia at this
time than developing and sustaining the young leadership of that region
in their associations with the West and that responsibility remains
critically in our hands.''
Islamic Exchange Initiative--Building Cultural Bridges
While the need for increased funding is worldwide, increased
exchanges with the Islamic world are particularly critical as we pursue
the war on terrorism. To defeat terrorism, the United States will need
more than the might and skill of our armed forces. To ultimately defeat
terrorism, we must also engage the Muslim world in the realm of ideas,
values, and beliefs.
No previous foreign affairs crisis has been so deeply rooted in
cultural misunderstanding. One of the lessons of September 11 is that
we have not done an adequate job of explaining ourselves to the world,
or of building the personal and institutional connections with these
countries that support healthy bilateral relationships. Policy
disagreements alone cannot account for the fact that many in Islamic
countries regard the United States, the greatest force for good in
human history, as a source of evil.
A Gallup poll conducted in February 2002 reported that 61 percent
of Muslims believe that Arabs did not carry out the attack on the
United States. That statistic alone speaks somber volumes about our
failure to project our values and ideals effectively in Islamic
nations.
Given the importance and urgency of the task and the broad arc of
countries we will need to engage, stretching from Africa to Southeast
Asia, we urge the subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for this
purpose.
As a long-term solution to the profound problems of cultural
misunderstanding, there is no substitute for public diplomacy. It must
be a key component of our long-term effort to eradicate terrorism.
Public diplomacy in the Muslim world will require a sustained, serious
effort if we are to succeed in our quest for lasting peace and
security, stable bilateral relationships, and an end to terrorism. An
Islamic Exchange Initiative, designed to broaden the range of
meaningful relationships based on shared interests with current and
emerging leaders and key institutions in Muslim countries, will be
critical to our success.
Changing minds--or merely opening them--is a long, painstaking
process. There are no quick fixes. If we are to win the war on
terrorism, there will be no avoiding the need to build bridges between
the American people and the people of the Muslim world. We must begin
this process now.
In the Islamic world, we envision this initiative engaging the full
range of programs and activities managed by the Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs: Fulbright and Humphrey exchanges that will
stimulate broader cultural understanding, joint research and teaching,
and foster positive relationships with a new generation of leaders;
university affiliations targeted toward key fields such as mass media
and economic development; International Visitor and other citizen
exchange programs designed to bring emerging leaders into significant
and direct contact with their professional counterparts and the daily
substance of American life; youth and teacher exchanges and enhanced
English teaching programs, all designed to bring larger numbers of
young people a direct and accurate picture of our society, based on
personal experience rather than vicious stereotyping.
Increasing the State Department's exchanges with the Islamic world
will give us the means to develop productive, positive relationships.
This initiative will engage the American public--in our communities,
schools, and universities--in an effort to project American values. We
will find no better or more convincing representatives of our way of
life.
And the engagement of the American public will leverage significant
additional resources to support this effort.
Initial efforts were made during the 107th Congress to both
authorize and fund programs on a broad range of exchange activities to
build relationships with the Islamic world and enhance U.S. national
security.
We commend the subcommittee for funds made available in the fiscal
year 2002 supplemental for Islamic exchanges. The $10 million
appropriated by this subcommittee has been put to good use by the
Department of State in key programs such as Fulbright, International
Visitors, and English teaching.
We also recognize that this funding reflected the broad bipartisan
support for an Islamic Exchange Initiative, clearly expressed in the
passage in the House of the Hyde/Lantos Freedom Promotion Act, and in
the Kennedy/Lugar Cultural Bridges Act, which attracted 12 cosponsors
of both parties in the Senate.
A meaningful and effective Islamic exchange initiative will require
$100 million above the appropriation for the State Department's core
exchanges. We recognize that this is a significant amount of money. We
believe, however, that this funding level is necessary and appropriate
given the expanse of the Muslim world and the urgency and importance of
the task at hand. Moreover, this amount of money spent on promoting our
ideas and values is very small when compared to the sums we will expend
on military hardware, but it is no less crucial to our success.
The level of support we have witnessed from senior members of both
parties and both chambers underscores the timeliness and importance of
this initiative. This is a moment when our national interests require
Congressional leadership to build these cultural bridges.
Other program issues
In addition, we would like to draw the subcommittee's attention to
three specific programs we believe are deserving of additional support:
--The Foreign Study Grants for U.S. Undergraduates program, also
known as the Gilman Scholarship Program, assists students of
limited financial means from the United States to pursue study
abroad. Demand for the scholarships is enormous, demonstrated
by the nearly 3,000 applicants from 44 states and Puerto Rico
last year. Due to funding constraints, however, the program was
only able to grant 302 awards.
--The Educational Partnership Program (formerly known as the College
and University Affiliations Program) supports cooperation
between U.S. colleges and universities and foreign post-
secondary institutions in the form of faculty exchanges,
curriculum development, collaborative research and other
activities.
--Overseas Educational Advising/Information Centers serve as an
important, unbiased information resource for prospective
foreign students interested in the United States.
We have provided subcommittee staff with report language on these
issues and welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you.
The U.S. exchange community stands ready to assist you in these
efforts, and is grateful for your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Foreign Service Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the 23,000 active-duty
and retired members of the Foreign Service, I express our appreciation
for the opportunity to share our views and concerns with you.
The work of this Subcommittee is vital to the success of our
Nation's foreign policy. Your decisions determine whether we have the
infrastructure and many of the tools of diplomacy needed to implement
our policy. The Subcommittee's and the Congress's support of the
Administration's request in meeting our staffing needs, improving our
information technology systems, making our posts and missions more
secure, and providing for an active exchange program is very much
appreciated. Certainly Secretary of State Colin Powell and his staff
also must be thanked for their hard work on our behalf as they make
their presentations before the Congress. The Secretary consistently
describes his current role as both the President's principal foreign
policy advisor and as the CEO of the Department of State. It has been a
long time since the Foreign Service has had a Secretary who has worn
both hats so effectively.
As the representative of the Foreign Service, our major concern is
the appropriations for the Administration of Foreign Affairs section of
the appropriations bill. This area covers funding for personnel and
especially the Secretary's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI),
funding to bring the Department into the 21st Century in terms of
information and communications technology, and the security of our
people as they serve this Nation in over 250 posts and missions around
the world.
CONTINUED VIGILANCE OF STAFFING NEEDS REQUIRED
With the fiscal year 2004 request of $97 million for the DRI to
hire 399 additional foreign affairs personnel above attrition, we are
in the final year of a three-year plan to fill an identified personnel
shortfall of over 1,100 people.
As you know, several important 1999 and 2000 studies from very
respectable organizations found the infrastructure of diplomacy ``near
a state of crisis.'' The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP)
reported in 1999:
``The United States overseas presence, which provided the essential
underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for many decades, is near a state
of crisis. Insecure and often decrepit facilities, obsolete information
technology, outmoded administrative and human resources practices, poor
allocation of resources, and competition from the private sector for
talented staff threaten to cripple our nation's overseas capability,
with far-reaching consequences for national security and prosperity.''
Fortunately the warnings in those studies were taken to heart. The
Secretary and the Congress worked together to fill that personnel
shortfall and to improve our information technology over three years.
We are already beginning to see the benefits as new personnel are
hired, the stress is being lifted from the shoulders of overly
stretched personnel and there is an easing, though not a reduction, in
the work expectations of ``doing more with less.'' Foreign Service
personnel are able to take needed training and participate in career
development programs instead of having to choose between training and
filling an empty position, and a surge capacity is developing.
Further, because of the support for our information and
communications technology systems, our equipment is modern and we have
or will soon have classified and unclassified connectivity to every
post that requires it, and access to the Internet from our desktops.
Our communications and information systems are no longer the sad joke
they had become, and there are plans to continue improvements in these
areas including the SMART initiative to overhaul the systems for
cables, messaging, information sharing, and document archiving.
The momentum that started two years ago needs to be maintained. The
DRI needs to be successfully completed and the drive to improve our
information and communications technology sustained.
However, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the DRI, I would also urge the
Subcommittee to see adequate staffing as a dynamic process. The 1,158-
person shortfall was identified nearly 3 years ago as existing at that
point in time. Conditions have changed since then, and the complexity
of the demands on diplomacy continue to grow around the world. Section
301 of Public Law 107-228, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of
2003 requires the Secretary of State to submit a ``Comprehensive
Workforce Plan'' for the Department for the fiscal years 2003 through
2007. ``The plan shall consider personnel needs in both the Civil
Service and the Foreign Service and expected domestic and overseas
personnel allocations.'' AFSA would encourage the Subcommittee to
consider these workforce plans for staffing considerations as a start
to accommodate changes in the world in the coming years. We were near
crisis until the Administration and the Congress stepped in to turn
things around. The job is not done, and such a situation should not be
allowed to occur again. As the Secretary often states, ``diplomacy is
the first line of offense,'' and there are serious consequences for the
economy, the welfare and the security of our nation if diplomacy is not
adequately funded to do the job.
EMBASSY SECURITY--STILL MUCH TO BE DONE
AFSA believes that together, the Department of State and the
Congress have been making impressive strides in improving the security
of our posts and missions abroad. After the 1998 east Africa bombings
of our embassies, the Accountability Review Boards (ARB), chaired by
Admiral William Crowe, looked into the cause of those bombings and made
several important conclusions. First, they found that there was a new
face to international terrorism and a new threat environment. Secondly,
the ARB found that the cause of the bombings could not be placed at the
doorstep of any single individual but that it was a systemic problem of
inattention.
``. . . there was a collective failure by several Administrations
and Congresses over the past decade to invest adequate efforts and
resources to reduce the vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic missions
around the world to terrorist attacks.''
The ``new threat environment'' continues to haunt us as seen by the
continued attacks on the symbols of our country at home and abroad.
However, we have seen the second lesson addressed through a major
multi-year increase in security funding in both the hiring of
additional security personnel and in security upgrades that has left no
facility abroad unimproved. This increased funding is paying off as
evidenced by the minimal damage done to the American Consulate in
Karachi in a terrorist bombing in July 2002.
Mr. Chairman, despite significant upgrades to the security of our
facilities around the world, the General Accounting Office reported in
its March 20, 2003 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations:
``. . . even with these improvements, most office facilities do not
meet security standards. As of December 2002, the primary office
building at 232 posts lacked desired security because it did not meet
one or more of State's five key current security standards. . . . Only
12 posts have a primary building that meets all 5 standards. As a
result, thousands of U.S. government and foreign national employees may
be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.''
The Foreign Service does not seek hilltop fortresses in which to do
our work. Such would be counterproductive to our purpose for being in a
country. We accept the dangers that are part of our profession, but we
also expect that our government, which sends us to these posts, should
seek to provide for our safety as much as possible. AFSA urges that
funding continue at its current, if not an accelerated pace, to
complete the work of securing our posts and missions abroad.
``Soft Targets''.--There is a subset of our concerns about the
security of our posts and missions abroad. As you know from our
testimony submitted to the Subcommittee last year, threats to ``soft
targets'' are a major concern to the Foreign Service. In just the past
year, we have had a mother and daughter killed in a church in
Islamabad, Pakistan, and an USAID official assassinated in front of his
house in Amman, Jordan. We also saw the bombing of a nightclub that was
popular a Western tourist spot in Bali, Indonesia. The threats to
``soft targets'' are very real for us. To Foreign Service members, the
term ``soft targets'' means our spouses and children as we try and lead
a somewhat normal life of going to school, to church, and on other
family outings.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate and thank you for your personal concern
and leadership in this area. It is clear that through your and this
Committee's work, the legislative branch understands that more than
bricks and mortar need to be protected, but the Foreign Service
community as well. The lead that this Committee took in setting aside
funds to examine the threat against schools abroad that our children
attend, and the Senate's designation, through your work, to have $10
million additional funds for soft target protection in the fiscal year
2003 Supplemental Appropriations add to our appreciation. While the
additional funds for embassy security were significant, we were sorry
to see that Conference recommendations had dropped the additional funds
specifically designated for soft target protection.
AFSA urges this Subcommittee to continue in its efforts to provide
additional funding to shore up this important part of our overseas
security. ``Soft targets'' is a descriptive euphemism, but what we are
really talking about is the lives of our people and their families as
they serve this Nation abroad.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I again wish to
express our appreciation for the opportunity for the American Foreign
Service Association to share our views and concerns with you. The
decisions you make affect both our professional and private lives as we
serve this Nation abroad. You directly help determine how safe we are
at work and in our housing abroad; what our working conditions are
like, from having to work in converted cargo boxes to comfortable,
fully equipped offices; whether we have adequate staffing to share the
work and whether we have information and telecommunications software
and equipment to talk to our Colleagues around the world. We thank you
for your understanding these past few years, and we ask for your
continued support in the fiscal year 2004 funding process and beyond.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Small Business Development
Centers
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the Subcommittee, I
am Donald Wilson, President of the Association of Small Business
Development Centers (ASBDC). The Association is grateful for the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record of the
Subcommittee's fiscal year 2004 hearings.
ASBDC's members are the 58 State, Regional and Territorial Small
Business Development Center programs comprising America's Small
Business Development Center Network. All Small Business Development
Center (SBDC) grantees, located throughout the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa,
are members of the ASBDC.
Since its establishment by Congress in 1980, America's Small
Business Development Center Network has provided in-depth counseling of
an hour or more, and training of two hours or more, to roughly 10
million small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs. In addition,
millions more entrepreneurs have used the network as an informational
resource for answers to questions as simple as how to get a business
license or where to get an employer identification number.
ASBDC urges the Subcommittee to fund our nation's SBDC network at
its currently authorized level of $125 million in the fiscal year 2004
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. The Association recognizes
the difficult funding choices that the Subcommittee must make in these
difficult times, and that ASBDC's recommendation represents a
significant increase in the current funding level for the SBDC program.
However, America's SBDC network can help our country recover from its
current economic stagnation, create desperately needed new jobs, and
generate the additional Federal revenues needed to reduce the budget
deficit.
First, it is important to note that Federal funding for the SBDC
network generates more revenue for the Federal treasury than it costs
the taxpayer. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget points out that
an independent evaluation of the SBDC program indicated that each $1
spent on SBDC counseling resulted in $2.78 in tax revenues. The SBDC
program generated an estimated $182.9 million in Federal revenue in
2001--an excellent return for a Federal investment of $88 million for
the nationwide SBDC program.
In addition, America's SBDC network has a proven record of creating
jobs and generating growth for America's small businesses. At the
beginning of the most recent recession in 2001, as large corporation
after large corporation announced layoffs, long-term counseling clients
of the SBDCs added 46,688 new jobs, saved 34,215 existing jobs, started
12,872 new businesses, increased sales by $3.9 billion, and saved an
additional $4.3 billion in sales. In addition, SBDC long-term
counseling helped small businesses obtain an estimated $2.7 billion in
financing in 2001. That means every dollar spent on the operation of
the SBDC network leveraged approximately $15.89 in new capital raised
by long-term SBDC clients in 2001.
Based on its record over the past 10 years, with funding of $125
million our nation's SBDC network could help SBDC long-term counseling
clients to:
--create an estimated 111,744 new full time jobs;
--increase sales by an estimated nine billion dollars;
--produce an estimated $266 million in additional revenue for the
Federal government; and
--produce an estimated $397 million in additional tax revenue for
State governments.
Federal funding for the national SBDC network is an investment in
the job creation potential of America's small business sector--the
engine of our nation's economy. Today, job creation by small businesses
has declined as America's entrepreneurs struggle in a sluggish economy.
Initial weekly unemployment claims have been above 400,000 for the past
eleven consecutive weeks--a clear indication that the economy is still
struggling to recover from recession. In fact, 2001 and 2002 were the
worst two consecutive years of job creation in the American economy
since the 1950's.
America's SBDC Network can help the small business sector of our
economy generate jobs again, but we need the resources to do the job.
Federal funding available for distribution to the SBDC program
decreased between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2004 (after
accounting for inflation, earmarks and the establishment of the SBDC
program in Guam and American Samoa)--while Federal government receipts
increased by 26 percent in constant dollars. In addition, as a result
of the 2000 Census, 24 States--including Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico
and Wisconsin--are subject to receiving less Federal funding for their
SBDC programs than they received in 2001--simply because their
populations did not grow as fast as other State populations.
There is room in the Federal budget for increased resources for our
nation's SBDC network. For example, the Small Business Administration
(SBA) Budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 calls for increasing the
SBA's Salaries and Expenses account to $219 million. That is an
increase of $57 million (35 percent) compared to fiscal year 2002, and
an increase of $10 million (5 percent) compared to the SBA's fiscal
year 2003 Budget proposal. However, the SBA's Budget proposal calls for
cutting the SBA Non-Credit Business Assistance account to $141 million
in fiscal year 2004. This is the account that funds SBDCs and other
programs that provide direct assistance to small businesses. For those
programs, the SBA's Budget proposes to cut $26 million (20 percent)
compared to fiscal year 2002, and $3 million (2 percent) compared to
the SBA's fiscal year 2003 Budget proposal. Funding for SBA can be more
wisely spent on direct assistance for small businesses rather than on
administrative overhead.
I urge you to consider that Federal funding for the SBDC network is
now more important than ever, as State governments across the country--
including possibly Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire,
Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin and others--are cutting back on their
contributions to the SBDCs. This is not because of lack of support for
the SBDC program, but rather because of the revenue crises faced by
State governments across the country. Unless Federal support for the
national SBDC network is able to make up for cuts in State funding,
SBDC program capacity across the United States will have to be severely
cut back. Counselors will have to be laid off and service centers will
have to be closed. The job creation and economic development activities
of the SBDC network will be curtailed proportionately--at the very time
that the economy is in need of a stimulus.
Recent and pending state budget cuts in SBDC funding will assure
that America's Small Business Development Center network will contract
even further this year without a significantly increased federal
appropriation. Rural areas which have unique economic development needs
have already been adversely impacted by the closing of centers and the
laying off of counselors. Unlike other federal management and technical
assistance programs, federal dollars appropriated to the SBDC program
leverage roughly three additional non-federal dollars. The decline in
state resources as result of the crisis in state budgets cannot
possibly be made up from private sector sources in the current economic
climate. The Federal government needs to recognize the growing
financial plight of the SBDC network in these trying economic times. If
the Federal government does not allocate resources to the SBDC program
at a level approximating $125 million for fiscal year 2004, the
management and technical assistance needs of tens of thousands of small
firms will go unmet and thousands of private sector jobs will likely be
lost. The resulting decline in economic activity will surely have a
significantly negative impact on state and federal budgets. The
remarkable infrastructure of over 900 SBDC service centers developed
over the past twenty-three years will deteriorate even further as more
service centers are closed and dedicated counselors are laid off.
The work of America's Small Business Development Center Network is
constantly being recognized by others. The Bill J. Priest Institute for
Economic Development, a Division of the Dallas County Community College
District, was the only recipient of the Texas Award for Performance
Excellence in 2002. The award is patterned after the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality award and recognizes Texas organizations that excel in
world-class management, achievement, and performance excellence in
applying quality and customer satisfaction principles. A critical
component of the Institute is the Dallas Regional SBDC. NAMTAC, the
National Association of Manufacturing and Technical Assistance
Center's, presented its 2002 Outstanding Project of the Year Award to
the New York State SBDC for its efforts to help small businesses
recover from the September 11, 2001 terrorists attack in that state.
The Maine SBDC program late last year was awarded the Margaret Chase
Smith Maine State Quality Award. This award recognizes organizations
for performance excellence based on criteria corresponding to the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.
In June of last year Secretary of Commerce Evans presented the
Black Hawk College Export Trade Center, a special component of the
Black Hawk College SBDC, with the President's ``E'' Award for Exporting
Excellence. This prestigious award was created by President John F.
Kennedy to recognize U.S. Businesses or organizations that have
demonstrated outstanding growth and innovation in exports or export
service. ASBDC is proud of the accomplishments of its members and their
capable and committed personnel.
The Subcommittee's consideration of fiscal year 2004 funding for
the SBDC program comes at a critical time for our nation's economy.
Small businesses generate 52 percent of Gross Domestic Product,
represent 99 percent of all employers and employ 51 percent of all
private sector employees. During the past decade small businesses
created roughly 70 percent of net new jobs in our economy. But all is
not well with the small business sector. The most recent data available
from SBA's Office of Advocacy finds that in 2001 small business
bankruptcies nationwide increased nearly 13 percent over the previous
year. No doubt, newer national figures will show those numbers further
increasing. The majority of small business owners have never received
any formal entrepreneurial training. The majority has never managed a
business during an economic downturn. The need for management and
technical assistance within the small business sector is greater today
than ever before. The Department of Labor confirms that when
unemployment rises, self-employment rises.
There are 23 million small business owners in the United States,
and the Kauffman Foundation estimates that one in 10 adult Americans is
seeking to start his or her own business. Forty percent of SBDC clients
are women (SBDC's served over a quarter million female clients last
year) and 22 percent are minorities. Demand for entrepreneurial
services among these constituencies is exploding.
SBA figures for fiscal year 2002 show that SBDC counseling cases
and training attendees combined increased from 610,000 in fiscal year
2001 to 650,000 in fiscal year 2002 despite an increase in federal
funding of less than $100,000. These client numbers represent real
people, your constituents, individuals, many with families, and
mortgages, tuition payments and dreams. They are real people like Dr.
Harris Goldberg, a chemist from Hillsborough, New Jersey who was
featured in a December 16, 2002 article in the Wall Street Journal. Dr.
Goldberg had been laid off, decided to seek assistance at his local
SBDC and now has his own successful firm providing employment to
others.
If we are to have any chance of growing this economy at the level
needed to provide jobs and enhance federal revenues, there must be a
clear determination by Congress to provide the resources to increase
the service capacity of the SBDC program. ASBDC appreciates the
Subcommittee's support for the SBDC network in past years. I urge you
to support an appropriation of $125 million for our nation's SBDC
network in the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations
bill. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy is escalating its focus on freshwater,
coastal, and marine conservation by establishing Freshwater and Marine
Initiatives that will employ the science, partnerships, ecosystem
approach, and site-based conservation that has worked throughout our
fifty-year history. These initiatives will strengthen the work that we
are engaging in with partners to develop a ``conservation blueprint''
identifying the places that, if conserved, will collectively protect
the nation's plants, animals, and natural communities for the long-
term. Several NOAA programs have been, or will be successful at
conserving many places identified by our blueprint.
Coastal Zone Management
CZM Grants to States--$80 million
CZM Program Administration--$7.5 million
Non-point Pollution Implementation Grants--$15 million
This unique federal-state-territorial partnership created under the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) serves to protect, restore, and
responsibly develop the nation's coastal communities and resources
along 95,000 miles of shoreline. State and territorial CZM programs
link national objectives with implementation and stewardship at the
local level. Increased funding for this program in fiscal year 2004
would advance protection of coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes species and
their habitats; maintain the natural shoreline such as beaches, dunes
and wetlands; and enhance scientific research and education, while
allowing for certain economic growth.
Many Conservancy chapters already pursue mutual goals with state
CZM programs. We are working to strengthen these partnerships in light
of our heightened emphasis on conserving freshwater, coastal, and
marine biodiversity.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System
Operations--$18 million
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction--$15 million
Authorized as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the
twenty-five ``living laboratories'' making up the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERRS) require funding appropriate to the
importance of estuaries to critical habitat and coastal economies.
Adequate funding for the NERRS will permit individual reserves to
better implement strong management, research, education, and
stewardship activities within surrounding communities, and acquire key
tracts of land and conservation easements that buffer development
impacts. This funding would also facilitate implementation of system-
wide monitoring and coastal training programs, and would enable
expansion in order for the system to represent the suite of
biogeographic regions that together comprise our nation's coastlines.
We work closely with New Hampshire's Great Bay, Florida's
Apalachicola Bay, Alaska's Kachemak Bay, South Carolina's ACE Basin,
and Mississippi's Grand Bay reserves. As preserve managers, we at the
Conservancy know first hand that the NERRS implements solid science to
inform communities about how coastal ecosystems function, how humans
affect them, and methods for improving their condition.
National Marine Sanctuaries--$38 million
The Nature Conservancy urges the Committee to fund the National
Marine Sanctuary Program at their fully authorized level of $38 million
in fiscal year 2004 and we support the President's funding request for
$10 million for Procurement, Acquisition & Construction for the
Sanctuaries. This funding would extend volunteer programs, provide for
additional monitoring, and would fulfill a national plan for public
outreach. It would also enable new investments in science needed to
better manage complex issues surrounding sanctuaries. Finally,
additional funding will enable implementation of revised and more
detailed management plans.
The Conservancy is currently working cooperatively with the NMS
program and the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation to develop
effective volunteer programs for all of the Sanctuaries to better
leverage federal investments with the ``sweat equity'' of those
thousands of committed volunteers across the country. We are also
working with the Monterey Bay NMS to determine overlapping goals and
opportunities for collaboration as the sanctuary reviews its management
plan. Finally, our most extensive experience has been with the Florida
Keys NMS where their management plan, developed in cooperation with the
state of Florida and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, is being
implemented.
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60 million
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was
authorized by Congress as part of the Commerce, Justice, State, and
Judiciary Appropriations Act of 2002. In its first year, this new
program directed $15.8 million to coastal and estuarine areas with
significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or
aesthetic value that are threatened by conversion from their natural
state to other uses.
Nowhere in the nation are threats such as sprawl, habitat loss, and
fragmentation more significant than along our nation's coasts. That is
why a program providing grants that allow for land acquisition as a
conservation strategy serves as an important addition to federal
efforts focused on protecting valuable habitat for the long-term. As a
result, The Nature Conservancy supports a significant increase in
funding ($60 million) for the CELCP in fiscal year 2004.
In addition, we have identified four high-priority projects for
CELP funding in fiscal year 2004:
--Crow's Nest (VA)--$4 million
--Gustavus Land Access and Enhancement (AK)--$1.5 million
--Amsterdam Beach (NY)--$3 million
--Ingleside (TX)--$500,000
Fisheries Habitat Restoration--$20 million
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports NOAA's coastal habitat
restoration efforts, and recommends funding levels of $20 million for
Fishery Habitat Restoration. Most of this funding would ensure the
continued success of NOAA's Community-based Restoration Program (CRP).
This funding level would enable the CRP to direct more seed money to
local communities across the country for the restoration of vital
habitats including wetlands, seagrass beds, mangroves, anadromous fish
spawning areas, and coastal rivers. Additionally, it would increase the
CRP's geographic scope and the rate at which it can encourage community
ownership and restoration of critical and rapidly dwindling habitat.
This program has not only leveraged up to $10 for every federal dollar
invested at more than 500 projects, but has also leveraged a
conservation ethic across the nation.
As a national partner, the Conservancy has experienced first hand
how the CRP inspires local efforts to conduct meaningful, on-the-ground
restoration of freshwater, coastal, and marine habitat. Since
partnering with the CRP in 2000, we have already directed $1 million to
community-based projects in Florida, New York, Connecticut, North
Carolina, Delaware, Virginia, California, and Texas. With one year
remaining in our national partnership, we are excited about what lies
ahead.
Pacific Salmon Recovery Program
The Conservancy considers salmon conservation a critical aspect of
our work in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and the Northeast. Given the
complex life history of this keystone species--migrating hundreds of
miles past forests and farms, cities and dams, from fresh to saltwater
during their lifecycle--successful salmon conservation requires action
across a broad landscape.
History has shown that money spent on habitat restoration and
recovery could have been used more effectively and at less cost to the
taxpayer if applied at a landscape-scale before systems were altered
and degraded. However, habitat destruction, reduced streamflows,
pollution, passage impediments, and overharvest have already played a
role in the decline of salmon stocks. That is why generous funding to
conserve and recover salmon in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska ($200
million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund; $55 million for
NMFS Funding for Pacific Salmon Recovery), and in the Northeast ($30
million for an equivalent Atlantic Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund), is
now needed.
In the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund has enabled states and tribes to support local efforts to
evaluate, protect, and restore key habitat while enhancing local
economies. NMFS funding enhances that support with scientific research
and monitoring, and by spurring new cooperative efforts. In the
Northeast, a significant amount of collaborative work among federal
agencies, industry, private landowners, and other stakeholders has
begun. The time is right to establish a similar approach and
complementary funding for USFWS and NMFS.
Marine Protected Areas--$5 million
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.
The Conservancy recommends that $5 million be appropriated for MPAs
so that NOAA can continue working with federal and state agencies and
other partners to assess MPA design and effectiveness as a management
tool that protects biodiversity while permitting use of the nation's
valuable marine resources. Increased funding would also expedite
information collection and collaborative efforts required for
completion of the first nationwide inventory of MPAs. Additional funds
would be employed to improve coordination and information sharing at
regional and national levels; support training and technical assistance
for communities, users, management agencies, and others; and increase
public involvement through the MPA web site.
Coral Reef Conservation--$30.25 million (total)
The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request for $28.25
million in fiscal year 2004 for activities that benefit coral reefs,
including:
--National Ocean Service--$16 million + $2 million
--National Marine Fisheries Service--$11 million
--Ocean and Atmospheric Research--$500,000
--NESDIS--$750,000
This funding would be used to advance priorities identified by the
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force including comprehensive mapping and
monitoring of coral reefs, research into ecological processes upon
which reefs depend, 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 serve as a model in intergovernmental coordination
and coral reef protection for similar initiatives around the world.
The Conservancy urges the Committee to add to the President's
request $2 million for grants to support on-the-ground conservation
efforts. The availability of a small pot of funds that could be made
available as grants to community-based efforts to address land-based
sources of pollution or to support collaborative efforts to identify
and designate Marine Protected Areas would be of substantial benefit to
implementing the Coral Reef Task Force Action Plan.
While NOAA's activities, guided by the Task Force, have made great
strides in coral reef conservation, the Conservancy would like to see
more funding dedicated to addressing this issue at an international
scale. The combined effects of global climate change and human
activities have led coral reef ecosystem health to decline severely all
over the world in recent decades. It is now critical to take action
before the tragedy becomes irreversible. Successful conservation of
coral reefs will involve a broad-scale, global, and long-term
commitment.
Estuary Restoration Program--$1.2 million
The Nature Conservancy supports the President's request of $1.2
million for NOAA in fiscal year 2004 to carry out their duties related
to this program.
The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 created this program with the
goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. Subject
to annual appropriations by Congress, the legislation authorized $275
million over five years dedicated to public-private partnerships
reversing the deterioration of estuaries through restoration of habitat
that has been degraded by population growth, dams, and pollution. The
Estuary Restoration Act emphasized the need for a centralized source of
information on restoration activities, that provides for a consistent
monitoring methodology that supports an iterative process and
meaningful measures of success.
International Conservation
Technical Assistance under CZMA--$1 million
International Cooperation under NMSA--$500,000
We recognize the significant accomplishments of the National Ocean
Service (NOS) over the past several years in developing international
capacity for integrated coastal management and marine protected area
management particularly in Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean. NOS
provides critical environmental leadership, for example: in the
development of the recently ratified Protocol on Specially Protected
Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the wider Caribbean region, its support of
the International Coral Reef Initiative and the Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network, its leadership of IUCN's World Commission on
Protected Areas (Marine) and especially extensive preparations for the
marine program of the World Parks Congress in September 2003. We
encourage increased allocation of resources toward these and other
international activities with $1 million added to appropriations under
Section 310, Technical Assistance, of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
and $500,000 added to appropriations under Section 305, International
Cooperation, of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Bar Association
I am Jonathan Ross a lawyer in private practice with the
Manchester, New Hampshire law firm of Wiggin & Nourie. This testimony
is submitted at the request of the President of the American Bar
Association, Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., to voice the Association's views
with respect to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Legal
Services Corporation and the Judiciary's Defender Services Program.
I submit this testimony in my capacity as Chair of the American Bar
Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants.
This Standing Committee serves the ABA and the nation by examining
issues relating to the delivery of civil legal assistance and criminal
defender services to the poor. It maintains a close liaison with state
and local bar association leaders, providing information and developing
policy and initiatives on civil legal aid and indigent defense.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
The ABA recommends LSC's fiscal year 2004 appropriation be
increased to $387.7 million.--The ABA is profoundly grateful for the
Subcommittee's inclusion of the Harkin-Smith-Domenici amendment in the
Senate's version of the fiscal year 2003 appropriation bill. This
amendment increased LSC's funding by $19 million and was intended to
prevent drastic funding cuts to legal aid programs serving 26 states.
We are also grateful for the Subcommittee's hard work to ensure that
half of that amount, $9.5 million, was included in the final version of
the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.
As you know, the Corporation redistributes grants to local legal
aid programs every 10 years using a formula based on the most recent
census. This reallocation resulted in significant cuts to service areas
in these 26 states, including Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Texas, Wisconsin, Vermont, Louisiana,
Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota and Michigan. Because of the static
nature of LSC funding and the 5.74 percent increase in the poverty
population nationwide, even states whose poverty population (and LSC-
eligible clients) remained the same or actually increased may have
received funding cuts.
At present, however, no state is able to meet the current demand
for legal assistance, as programs must continue to turn away eligible
clients with all but critical legal needs. In addition to the increase
in the number of eligible clients as a result of the increase in the
national poverty population, almost every state has already experienced
or expects significant decreases in supplemental funding provided
through state legislatures and/or Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts
(IOLTA).
At the same time, various credible studies--state and national--
continue to show that despite the combined efforts of legal aid
programs and private bar pro bono attorneys, 80 percent of the legal
needs of those in poverty go unmet. These people are substantially the
``working poor'' who encounter legal problems relating to family
relationships, domestic violence, health, employment, housing and other
basic life issues. Such hardships have only increased in scope and
frequency since the terrorist attacks and as a result of the faltering
economy. Now, with the mobilization of U.S. forces for the war in Iraq,
there has been an increased demand for legal services among our
servicemen and women, many of whom qualify for legal aid.
We understand that your Subcommittee faces many difficult funding
choices right now. However, assuring access to our justice system for
low-income individuals to resolve their legal problems peacefully is
essential to preserving the rule of law. At this time, the ABA
respectfully requests that the Subcommittee fund LSC at $387.7 million
for fiscal year 2004.
The LSC has historically been grossly under-funded. In 1996,
Congress reduced LSC's funding by 30 percent from $415 million to $278
million and required many reforms in the way the LSC operated and
restricted the activities of its local program grantees. The LSC has
fully implemented all the required reforms, insuring that local
grantees focus on meeting the basic, everyday legal needs of the poor.
The appropriation has increased modestly since 1996, to $338.8 million
for fiscal year 2003, but this amount is less than half the funding, in
constant dollars, that LSC received in 1980.
We estimate that, with inflation, the amount needed to merely bring
LSC to pre-1996 levels would be $490 million. The ABA therefore urges
Congress to restore LSC's funding to $490 million. In view of other
pressing needs, we recognize that this cannot be accomplished at once,
and ask the Subcommittee to increase LSC's funding from the fiscal year
2003 level of $338.8 million to this amount over a three-year period
starting with a $51.1 million increase in fiscal year 2004.
At the very minimum, the ABA urges the Subcommittee to provide at
least $352.4 million for fiscal year 2004, as recently requested by the
Legal Services Corporation. LSC's request represents an increase
correlating to the increase in the poverty population reported by the
2000 census.
The Legal Services Corporation Plays A Vital Role in the Justice
System.--For more than a quarter century, the Legal Services
Corporation has been a lifeline for Americans in desperate need. For
poor Americans, LSC-funded legal services programs have been there at
times when they had nowhere else to go. These are just a few examples
of the millions of people legal aid lawyers help every year:
--Alexander and his wife had to move to another state for health
reasons. They were unable to sell their mobile home, and
eventually the lender repossessed the unit. Later, a collection
agency notified them that they still owed $12,000 on the note.
At age 84, Alexander, who took pride in his good credit rating,
wanted to do the right thing. He could not, however, pay the
amount owed, nor could he afford an attorney. The local legal
services office was able to assist him in obtaining a
settlement agreement. He paid the settlement amount and was
able to keep his good credit rating. He has returned to the
work force part time and is caring for his ailing wife.
--Mark, 38 years old, was dying from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Conventional chemotherapy had helped, but he needed a special
type of bone marrow transplant to ensure that the lymphoma
would not recur. Without the procedure, his doctors predicted
that he would have only one year to live. Medicaid denied the
procedure, claiming that this type of transplant was not a
covered benefit even though it is considered the current
standard of care for the disease. Mark's legal services
attorney successfully argued that the denial was improper. The
transplant was successful, and Mark is now home and seeking
employment.
The Corporation, formed in 1974 with bipartisan Congressional
support and the endorsement of the Nixon Administration, was created to
ensure that all Americans have access to a lawyer and the justice
system for civil legal issues regardless of their ability to pay.
Today, this is more important than ever. A weak economy has created
pressing new legal needs for many Americans who have lost employment or
suffered other setbacks. According to the 2000 census, more than 36
million Americans live in poverty, making more than one in six
Americans eligible for LSC-funded representation.
The National Legal Aid Program Merits Strong Congressional Support
Because:
--LSC-funded programs provide basic legal services for poor Americans
in every Congressional District in the country.--LSC disburses
95 percent of its annual federal appropriation to 161 local
legal aid programs serving low-income individuals and families
in every county and Congressional District in the country.
Boards consisting of leaders in the local business and legal
communities set the priorities for and oversee these programs,
which are required by law to provide basic legal services to
the poor.
--LSC-funded legal aid lawyers save and protect American families.--
Local legal aid programs make a real difference in the lives of
millions of low-income American families by helping them
resolve everyday legal matters, including family law, housing,
and consumer issues, and by helping them obtain wrongly denied
benefits such as social security and veterans' pensions. LSC-
funded programs often provide assistance to those who suddenly
qualify and need legal assistance, such as when natural or
national disaster strikes; LSC-funded programs were
instrumental in assisting September 11 victims and families.
Many low-income military families qualify for legal aid, and
seek help with such matters as estate planning, consumer and
landlord/tenant problems and family law.
--LSC-funded programs are the nation's primary source of legal
assistance for women who are victims of domestic violence.--
Legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of the top
priorities in their caseloads. While domestic violence occurs
at all income levels, low-income women are significantly more
likely to experience violence than other women, according to
the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Recent studies also show
that the only public service that reduces domestic abuse in the
long term is women's access to legal aid.
--The White House, the Congress and the American people support the
LSC.--President Bush supports funding for the LSC, recognizing
that ``[f]or millions of Americans, LSC-funded legal services
is the only resource available to access the justice system.''
A bipartisan majority in Congress supports LSC; the Harkin-
Smith-Domenici amendment ultimately added $9.5 million to LSC's
fiscal year 2003 budget at a time when many other domestic
programs were being cut or flat-funded. The American public
agrees that federal tax dollars should fund LSC: a national
poll reported in 2000 that 82 percent of those surveyed
supported government-funded legal aid.
--The private bar cannot replace the services provided by LSC-funded
programs.--The private bar actively encourages and organizes
its members to provide pro bono legal services. Among many
other efforts, the ABA's Standing Committee on Legal Aid to
Military Personnel helps the military and the Department of
Defense improve the effectiveness of legal assistance in civil
matters to an estimated nine million servicemen and women and
their dependents. However, a well-funded federal legal services
program is essential to leverage other resources--human and
financial--to help meet the legal needs of the poor. Without
adequate federal funding, these non-LSC resources would be both
less abundant and less effectively utilized--and, in many
cases, would not exist.
criminal justice act: defender services program
The ABA supports the request of the U.S. Judicial Conference for an
hourly rate increase from $90 to $113 for compensation for panel
attorneys who represent indigent defendants under the Criminal Justice
Act. This modest increase is needed to continue to attract and retain
competent panel attorneys. We also support the Judiciary's request for
funds sufficient to increase the maximum hourly capital panel attorney
rate from $128 to $157. The current capital panel attorney rate has not
been raised since 1989, and now does not even cover overhead costs for
many attorneys doing this most difficult work, work often done under
highly stressful, emergency conditions. The Florida Supreme Court
recently concluded that every capital case by definition involves
``extraordinary circumstances and unusual representation.'' Without a
fee increase, scores of qualified attorneys will simply stop taking
capital cases.
CONCLUSION
The American Bar Association urges the Subcommittee to provide
adequate funding for the Legal Services Corporation and the Defender
Services Program. These two programs are essential for ensuring ``equal
access to justice'' for all.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
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 raise the cap on the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund to
$685 million for fiscal year 2004. In addition, I urge you to prevent
the creation of additional earmarks off the top of the VOCA Fund.
The National Center for Victims of Crime is the leading resource
and advocacy organization for victims of crime. We are well acquainted
with the funding needs of the nation's crime victim assistance
programs. Since its founding in 1985, the National Center has worked
with 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. Our toll-free
information and referral Helpline keeps us in touch with the needs of
crime victims nationwide. Through our day-to-day interactions with our
members and with the 7,800 crime victim service providers in our
service referral network, we are aware of the work they do and of the
impact that funding decisions at the federal level have on their
ability to meet the needs of victims. We also interact with crime
victim service providers through our Training Institute, which offers
training on a variety of issues to service providers throughout the
country. In short, we hear from victims and service providers every day
about the impact and importance of the VOCA Fund.
As you know, the VOCA Fund consists of fines and penalties imposed
on federal offenders. The bulk of the money is distributed each year by
formula grants to the states to fund both their crime victim
compensation programs, which pay many of the out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by victims, and victim assistance programs, such as rape
crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, victim assistants in law
enforcement and prosecutor offices, and other direct services for
victims of crime.
Last year's $600 million cap on the VOCA Fund translated to a cut
in funding for crime victim assistance programs of approximately eight
percent. This eight percent funding decrease resulted from a change in
the VOCA formula enacted in October 2001 as part of the anti-terrorism
legislation, the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56. That change increased
the amount of VOCA Funds paid to states for their crime victim
compensation programs, leaving less available for grants to victim
service agencies.
The amount of VOCA money a state receives for compensation is
limited to a percentage of what that state paid out in a given year.
Previously, states received a reimbursement of 40 percent of what they
paid out in crime victim compensation. Beginning in fiscal year 2003,
that amount increased to 60 percent of what the state paid out. The
increase in VOCA funds that states received for compensation programs
limited the funds available for crime victim services. The USA PATRIOT
Act had coupled the formula change with an incremental annual increase
in the VOCA cap that would have offset the loss of funds for victim
services. That annual increase mechanism, however, was stricken by
language in the appropriations measures for fiscal year 2002.
The impact of that eight percent cut has been significant for
programs already suffering from reduced private giving and state
support. From around the country, programs have reported to us that
they have had to:
--Lay off staff, or reduce full time staff to part time.--Uniformly,
programs reported that they were already operating at bare
bones levels. The only area left to cut is staff time, which
directly reduces services available to victims. Many programs
also reported that there were no similar agencies or services
in their area to whom victims could turn. The following
response from a Louisiana rape crisis center was typical: ``We
have already cut as many positions as we can without shutting
down entirely. We counsel victims of sexual assault, and any
cut will mean no counseling for those victims.'' In many
instances, programs have only one or two paid staff, and the
reduction in their time will necessitate elimination of
extensive volunteer programs because there will be insufficient
professional oversight and coordination.
--Limit their geographic coverage.--For instance, from Colorado,
Michigan, and Virginia we heard from programs that had been
serving victims in 5 to 10 counties; now they have had to pull
back from service in the outlying regions, leaving those
victims without services. Some programs serving rural victims
can no longer reimburse mileage or phone costs for volunteer
advocates who offer services throughout a large area.
--Discontinue services for special populations of victims.--In some
places, victim assistance programs have recently conducted or
been a part of needs assessments and strategic planning
efforts, and thus have a clear picture of special victim
populations which are not being adequately served. Many
services that had been developed for special populations are
being eliminated because of reduced funding. One program from
Minnesota stated that their ``immigrant and refugee program to
sexual assault victims will be cut. The bilingual advocate for
this program will most likely be laid off. The outreach to this
population in our community has been building for the past 8
years. The trust and confidence from the community will be
eroded. Most importantly, an underserved community will go
unserved.''
--Discontinue services for secondary victims.--For example, many
battered women's programs, which had relied on VOCA funding to
support services for the children who witnessed or sustained
abuse, are having to restrict and even eliminate those
services. A North Carolina shelter told us, ``In [our] county
there have been two domestic violence murders in 2003 one of
which was a stalking case. The five children involved in those
cases need our programs and we may not have the resources to
serve them. Then what?''
--Turn away crime victims.--Victim service providers from Alabama,
Massachusetts, and Nevada all reported that the numbers of
victims seeking assistance, and the numbers of schools and
other organizations seeking outreach programs, have increased
at the same time the available funding has decreased. One North
Carolina program noted, ``County guidance counselors and
medical professionals continue to identify and refer more and
more children who are victims of family violence, sexual
assault and sexual abuse due to the education provided by this
agency to teach them how to recognize child victims/witnesses
of domestic violence. Yet, we will not be able to offer our
afternoon programming or summer programs to additional children
until some of the current children enrolled in the program age
out.''
The effect of this year's cuts have been significant. The National
Center for Victims of Crime is asking that the VOCA Fund cap be raised
to $685 million for fiscal year 2004, to help programs make up for the
loss in funding this year and enable them to begin to expand their
programs. When we asked victim assistance programs about their spending
priorities for any increase in funding, they reported the following
needs:
--Services to immigrant victims of crime.--All over the country,
there are limited services, or even a 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 or bi-lingual service
providers, 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 a culture 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, and programs in Arizona,
Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Wyoming all
listed providing services to immigrant victims as a priority.
--Services to victims in rural jurisdictions.--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.
Victim service providers in Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, and
Montana all reported a need to expand efforts to cover multi-
county areas through the creation of satellite offices, the use
of volunteers or staff to travel to victims' homes or other
locations; or to increase the use of the Internet to serve
victims in rural communities.
--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. Many service providers, including programs
in Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, would like to expand
their programs to provide appropriate services to such crime
victims.
--Assistance to elderly victims.--A number of victim assistance
programs noted a need to increase their services to elderly
victims of crime, who often lack other forms of support and who
may require a service provider to visit them in their homes.
Victim assistance programs in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and
Wyoming all listed services to elder victims as a priority.
--Assistance to teen victims.--Many victim assistance programs are
hoping to extend services to teen victims of crime, especially
teen victims of dating violence. Providing prompt services to
teen victims can significantly lessen the lifelong impact of
crime, and programs in Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas all
described a need for services to teen victims.
--Providing more timely services to victims.--Victims in many
programs are waiting weeks or months to get into counseling or
support groups; victims in the criminal justice system may not
be contacted until close to the trial stage. Victim service
providers in Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia
all spoke of the need to hire additional staff to eliminate or
significantly reduce such waiting periods for services.
--Serving victims of non-violent crime.--As the incidence of identity
theft and fraud have increased, and the understanding of the
impact of non-violent crime on victims has grown, many victim
assistance programs, including those in Minnesota, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, expressed a desire to expand their services to
include such victims.
--Technology investments to enhance victim services.--Many victim
assistance programs reported that outdated computer equipment
limits their efficiency. 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. Programs in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas all noted
such needs.
Finally, while our first priority is to see the cap on the VOCA
Fund raised to $685 million for fiscal year 2004, we also urge you to
discontinue earmarks for federal positions off the top of the VOCA
Fund. New earmarks on the Fund have been enacted over the last several
legislative sessions, limiting the amount of money ultimately available
to states to fund local programs. These earmarks provide for victim/
witness coordinators in U.S. Attorneys' offices, for victim assistance
in the FBI, and for an automated victim notification system at the
federal level. Such expenditures are expected to be nearly $34 million
in fiscal year 2003. These earmarks result in a significant decrease in
funding available to help the vast majority of crime victims--victims
whose cases are prosecuted and who are served at the state and local
levels. Such federal 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 raising the cap on the
VOCA Fund to $685 million, and resisting pressure to earmark the Fund.
We must continue the progress of our national response to victims of
crime.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) 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 2004 funding request of $500,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for
CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $9.1 million already
contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
sector. NOAA was under contract for approximately $700,000 to measure
winds and temperatures during the CCOS field study. Currently, NOAA is
under contract for $250,000 to participate in the CCOS data analysis
and modeling. This request will partially replace funding already spent
for NOAA's participation in CCOS.
Most of central California does not attain federal health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is
developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the federal ozone
and particulate matter standards in the 2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San
Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their ozone SIP in 2004
based on new technical data. In addition, none of these areas attain
the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard
will be due in the 2007 timeframe--and must include an evaluation of
the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the
Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary
to prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The 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 upcoming ozone
attainment plans
The 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
$9.1 million for the field study. The federal government has
contributed $3,730,000 to support some data analysis and modeling. In
addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-kind support.
The Policy Committee is seeking federal co-funding of $6.25 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 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 the efforts
of 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.
For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
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 weather conditions along the Pacific coast for use in U.S. weather
models. In addition, CCOS provides data for research on air flows in
complex terrain. The improved results obtained from this research have
national applicability.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Monmouth University School of Science,
Technology and Engineering
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CENTER FOR COASTAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
The Department of the Interior's policies and practices reflect the
fact that clean water is essential to all Americans. Water resources in
the United States provide water to drink, water to irrigate crops,
provide habitat for a diversity of fish and wildlife, as wells as
provide for recreational opportunities such as fishing, boating, and
swimming. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
acknowledged that a majority of our watersheds have water quality
problems that include contamination with pathogens or toxic chemicals,
nutrient enrichment, fish and wildlife habitat loss, and invasive
species. According the EPA, these problems continue to impair
watersheds nationwide and prohibit the attainment of water quality
goals. They conclude by stating that problems are complex and varied,
and that governments working alone cannot solve all of them.
The Nation's fish and aquatic resources are among the richest and
most diverse in the world and annually they provide ecological, social,
and economic benefits to citizens and visitors. However, despite
efforts to conserve fish and other aquatic resources, a growing number
are declining and in need of special protection or management efforts
in some part of their natural or historic range. According to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the reasons for these declines are
linked largely to habitat loss or alteration and the impacts of harmful
exotic or transplanted species. To move forward in efforts to conserve
and manage aquatic resources and their habitats across the country, FWS
acknowledges the need to take an ecosystems approach and form
partnerships that promote collaboration among governmental agencies,
organizations, and individuals.
Rationale for a Coastal Watersheds Approach
New Jersey is a state richly endowed with coastal resources. These
resources support traditional fisheries and maritime industries as well
as more contemporary businesses and rapidly growing new concepts in
residential development. However, because of the rapid growth of both
resident and tourist populations, the nation's most densely populated
state faces enormous pressures balancing growth demand with the limited
nature of its coastal resources.
The marine ecosystems within the state currently exhibit signs of
stress and deterioration, as documented in the scientific and popular
literature. As coastal use and development increase and coastal
population continues to rise, impacts on the environment will become
even more severe. Among the most important impacts of concern in the
coastal zone are degradation and loss of habitats and the deterioration
of water quality.
The health and vitality of New Jersey's marine resources are
dependent upon the ability of governmental decision-making processes to
protect and enhance the coastal environment and reduce environmental
risk associated with unwise development and waste disposal practices.
However, throughout the past decade New Jersey citizens have been
disillusioned by what many perceive as an apparent inability to
properly manage the coastal zone even after such events as beach
closures, nuisance algal blooms, fish kills, contamination of habitats
and organisms with pathogens and toxic chemicals, sewage treatment
problems, depletion of fish stocks, and rampant coastal development
resulting in nonpoint pollution problems in ocean waters, coastal bays,
their tributaries and watersheds. A significant part of this
frustration is due to the inability of multiple governmental units to
collectively respond to very complex environmental phenomena.
the center for coastal watershed management
Progress To Date
Projects conducted by the Monmouth University Center for Coastal
Watershed Management will assist federal, state and local agencies,
communities, and organizations in achieving their goals and objects as
they relate to coastal watersheds and their natural and living
resources.
During the past year, as plans for the Center for Coastal Watershed
Management were under development at Monmouth, a number of projects
dealing with watershed research and education were initiated:
--Bacterial source tracking (BST) methodologies are being used for
identification of specific sources of fecal contamination in
local rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
--Rapid bioassessment (RBA) techniques are being used to characterize
several streams and lakes in Monmouth County.
--Fish communities in Whale Pond Brook, Deal Lake, Wreck Pond and the
Manasquan River Estuary are being characterized using passive
and active fishery sampling techniques.
--Local watershed and community groups have been assisted with
organization and implementation of stream cleanups and
assessments of impairments to the Whale Pond Brook and Poplar
Brook watersheds.
--STE has hosted or conducted numerous seminars and workshops dealing
with coastal and watershed issues in conjunction with a variety
of groups:
--Atmospheric Deposition (NJ Sea Grant Program)
--Nuisance Algal Blooms (NJ Sea Grant Program)
--Early Life History of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic (NOAA/NMFS)
--Watershed Educators Workshop (NJDEP/Monmouth County)
--Stormwater Management and Restoration Techniques for Coastal
Ponds and Lakes (NJDEP/Monmouth County)
--Volunteer Watershed Monitoring (NJDEP/Monmouth County)
--Watershed Area 12 Congress (NJDEP/Monmouth County)
--Water Monitoring Training Course (Monmouth County/YSI, Inc.)
Current and Future Objectives
In New Jersey, persistent coastal issues remain to be addressed,
including nonpoint source pollution, headwaters destruction, deposition
of pollutants into waterways, and habitat degradation. The State of New
Jersey has acknowledged the need for creative, comprehensive solutions
to watershed preservation, protection, and management. In 1997,
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) began implementing a
statewide watershed management framework to provide a means to further
restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity
of waters in the state using sustainable management principles that
allow a more holistic, rather than site-specific, approach to most
effectively protect water resources. The state's watershed management
framework is based on three key components: a geographic focus;
continuous improvement based on sound science; and partnership/
stakeholder involvement.
The Monmouth University Center for Coastal Watershed Management (MU
CCWM) will be housed within the School of Science, Technology and
Engineering. The Center will spearhead the application of science and
technology to the effective management of watershed resources in New
Jersey's coastal environment. The Center, in partnership with the
Monmouth County Health Department and with other regional
organizations, will serve as a focal point for the development of
leading edge approaches to the solution of problems facing local
communities and decision-makers at all levels of government by:
--Promoting interdisciplinary studies of coastal watersheds by
Monmouth University faculty, students, associates, and
colleagues; and
--Fostering collaboration between citizens, watershed and community
organizations, governmental agencies, local businesses, the
scientific community, and other parties interested in watershed
management and restoration.
Specific objectives of the Monmouth University Center for Coastal
Watershed Management include:
--Strengthen teaching, research, and outreach at Monmouth University
with emphasis on programs crossing university departmental
boundaries as they relate to the environmental, social, and
economic aspects of coastal watershed management.
--Provide a forum for the integration of knowledge from a wide array
of technical disciplines in addressing watershed management
issues.
--Establish an analytical capability to provide scientific
information necessary for making informed watershed management
decisions.
--Facilitate access to objective and scientifically sound information
on effective techniques to protect and restore coastal and
urban watersheds.
--Conduct community outreach programs highlighting the need for
greater protection of our waters and reliable and effective
ways of protecting and restoring coastal and urban watersheds.
--Conduct workshops and special programs for pre-college students and
educators from local school districts.
--Conduct continuing professional education programs for practicing
professionals in the form of short courses, workshops, and
seminars.
--Involve undergraduate students in faculty-supervised independent
research related to ecology, natural resource management,
environmental and resource economics, and local environmental
issues.
--Maximize University participation in the local, regional, and
statewide watershed initiatives.
______
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 natural specimens and cultural
artifacts. With nearly four 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. Museum scientists
conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics 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.
Today more than 200 Museum scientists with internationally
recognized expertise, led by 46 curators, conduct laboratory and
collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork and training.
The Museum's research programs are organized under five divisions
(Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences; Invertebrate
Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology), along with the Center
for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC). The Museum also conducts
graduate training programs in conjunction with a host of distinguished
universities, supports doctoral and postdoctoral scientists with highly
competitive research fellowships, and offers talented undergraduates an
opportunity to work with Museum scientists.
The Museum's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, founded in
1993, is dedicated to enhancing the use of rigorous scientific data to
mitigate critical threats to global biodiversity. The CBC draws on the
strengths of the Museum's scientific, education, and exhibition
departments to integrate this information into the conservation process
and to disseminate it widely. It forges key partnerships to conduct
conservation-related field projects around the world, train scientists,
organize scientific symposia, present public programs, and produce
publications geared toward scientists, policy makers, and the lay
public. Each spring, the CBC hosts symposia that focus on conservation
issues. In 2002, the symposium, ``Sustaining Seascapes: the Science and
Policy of Marine Resource Management,'' was co-sponsored by NOAA's
Marine Protected Areas Center, along with other federal and private
organizations, and examined the large-scale conservation of marine
ecosystems, giving special consideration to novel approaches to the
sustainable management of biodiversity and fisheries. The focus of
2003's symposium, held March 20-21, was on conservation issues related
to increased ecotourism in Southeast Asia.
The Museum's vast collections are a major scientific resource,
providing the foundation for the Museum's interrelated research,
education, and exhibition missions. They often include endangered and
extinct species as well as many of the only known ``type specimens''--
examples of species by which all other finds are compared. Within the
collections are many spectacular individual collections, including the
world's most comprehensive collections of dinosaurs, fossil mammals,
Northwest Coast and Siberian cultural artifacts, North American
butterflies, spiders, Australian and Chinese amphibians, reptiles,
fishes, and one of the world's most important bird collections.
Collections such as these are historical libraries of expertly
identified and documented examples of species and artifacts, providing
an irreplaceable record of life on earth. They provide vital data for
Museum scientists as well for more than 250 national and international
visiting scientists each year.
An exciting chapter in the Museum's history will occur this spring
when one of the flagship and most popular halls--the Hall of Ocean
Life--reopens after an extension renovation. Drawing on the Museum's
world-renowned expertise in Ichthyology as well as other areas of
vertebrate as well as invertebrate zoology, the Hall will be pivotal in
educating visitors about the oceans' key role in sustaining life on our
planet. It will feature two new ``Spectrum of Life'' walls highlighting
the extraordinary diversity of marine life, a completely renovated two-
story diorama of the Andros Coral Reef, a spectacular sea floor slab
from the late Jurassic Period, and panels showcasing fossil specimens
and some of the earliest signs of life on Earth, as well as the
beloved, and refurbished, 94-foot-long giant blue whale. The renovated
Hall of Ocean Life, together with the new Halls of Biodiversity, Planet
Earth, and the Universe and the rebuilt Hayden Planetarium (part of the
new Rose Center for Earth and Space), will 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.
With the reopening of the Hall of Ocean Life, the Museum will have
a singular opportunity for public education about marine environments,
and it will draw on its vast educational resources to do so. In its
Halls of Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and Ocean Life, the Museum
presents current science news through Science Bulletins--multimedia
productions that bring the latest science news and discoveries to the
public using high-definition video documentaries, kiosks, and the web.
The Bulletins will present features on such issues as marine
biodiversity report, ocean life discoveries, and more. In addition, the
Museum's Education Department provides standards-based curricular
materials and on-site programs for more than 400,000 students and
teachers who visit the Museum in school and camp groups each year, as
well as professional development programs for teachers, Moveable
Museums that travel to schools and community sites, a model after-
school program, award-winning online educational resources, and
lectures, workshops, and field excursions for adult learners. The
Museum's National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and
Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA, employs
innovative technologies to bring educational materials and programs to
online audiences nationwide.
COMMON GOALS OF NOAA AND THE AMERICAN MUSEUM
Today, as throughout its history, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is committed to describing and
predicting changes in the 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, technologies, and public
education that underlie them. Indeed, informed environmental
stewardship and preservation of our planet's biodiversity and
resources--in marine, coastal, and other natural environments and
habitats--are integral to the Museum's most fundamental purposes.
Museum scientists conduct research worldwide on conservation biology
and habitat protection. Their investigations advance scientific
understanding and public awareness of these vital issues. The Museum
has also long been at the forefront of developing new research modes
and methods, and today, throughout the science divisions and the CBC,
AMNH investigators are exploring applications of GIS and remote sensing
technologies to advance research pertinent to conservation and
protecting threatened species and habitats.
The research programs of the CBC and the science divisions are
enhanced by the Museum's research resources and technological capacity.
New research tools--including molecular technologies, new collection
types, innovations in computation, and GIS and remote sensing--are
revolutionizing the way research can be conducted and data analyzed, as
well as the way museum collections can be used and accessed by
scientists, educators, policy makers, and the general public. The
Museum has significant resources in these areas which it would bring to
bear in its proposed partnership with NOAA. These include the
following:
Molecular Laboratories.--The Museum's molecular systematics program
is at the leading edge of comparative genomics and the analysis of DNA
sequences for evolutionary research. It includes two Molecular
Systematics Laboratories, with sophisticated technologies for
sequencing and advanced genomics research. In these laboratories, more
than 40 researchers in molecular systematics, conservation genetics,
and developmental biology conduct their research on a variety of study
organisms.
Frozen Tissue Collection.--The Museum is expanding its collections
to include preserved biological tissues and isolated DNA in its new
super-cold storage facility. This collection is an invaluable resource
for research in many fields, including conservation biology, genetics
and comparative genomics because it preserves genetic material and gene
products from rare and endangered organisms that may become extinct
before science fully exploits their potential. Capable of housing one
million specimens, it will be the largest super-cold tissue collection
of its kind. In the past two years, 15,000 specimens not available at
any other institute or facility have already accessioned. At the same
time, the Museum is pioneering the development of collection and
storage protocols for such collections. To maximize use and utility of
the facility for researchers worldwide, the Museum is also developing a
sophisticated website and online database that includes collection
information and digitized images.
Supercomputing.--Museum researchers now have onsite access to a
560-processor cluster--the fastest parallel computing cluster in an
evolutionary biology laboratory and one of the fastest installed in a
non-defense environment. This computing cluster, constructed in-house
from scratch, represents one of the key achievements of Museum
scientists who, over the last eight years, have taken a leadership role
in developing and applying new computational approaches to deciphering
evolutionary relationships through time and across species. Their
groundbreaking efforts in cluster computing, algorithm development, and
evolutionary theory have been widely recognized and commended for their
broad applicability for biology as a whole. Indeed, the bioinformatics
tools these Museum scientists are creating will not only help to
generate evolutionary scenarios, but also will inform and make more
efficient large genome sequencing efforts pertinent to biodiversity
science as well as be applicable in other informatics contexts, in non-
genomics areas of evolutionary biology as well as in other disciplines.
Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems Technologies.--
The CBC houses a Remote Sensing/Geographical Information Systems (RS/
GIS) lab which has had noted success since it was launched in the fall
of 1998. Wise conservation policy requires 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. Remote sensing
technologies can provide essential data on such things as land-cover
and land-use, as well as sea surface temperatures and chlorophyll
content. GIS makes it possible for scientists to compare and visualize
the relationships among satellite and legacy data, raw standardized
samples, and data obtained through ground truthing. Because it provides
the database backbone than can connect field work to analysis, GIS is
becoming an indispensable component in environmental data analysis and
is thus revolutionizing work in conservation.
The CBC uses its RS/GIS technologies in biodiversity and marine
reserve research in various ways--for example, to identify sites
suitable for biological inventory; to provide supplementary
quantitative and qualitative data in and around study sites (e.g.
extent of habitat fragmentation); and to develop persuasive visual
depictions and digital presentations for reports, publications, and
meetings.
Building on the scientific strengths and resources outlined above,
the Museum now proposes to launch, in partnership with NOAA, a basic
and applied research initiative that employs the latest technologies to
advance scientific understanding of resource management and stewardship
issues for marine and coastal environments. The explosion of research
technologies creates a unique window of opportunity for the Museum to
develop new ways to integrate these state-of-the-art analytical tools
into its biological and environmental research, as well as to present
results to the public in its exhibition halls, websites, and
educational programs. It is this intersection of research capability
and technological opportunity that underlies the planned initiative.
The Museum proposes a multifaceted initiative to include work in
areas of concern it shares with NOAA, such as the following:
Conservation research using GIS.--Museum vertebrate and
invertebrate zoologists carry out ambitious field work and collection
expansion programs throughout the tropical freshwaters of the globe,
conduct biotic surveys, and explore marine ecosystems:
--Ichthyologists, for example, study the evolution, behavior, and
conservation of the largest and most diverse populations--and
one of the most endangered of all vertebrate groups--the
fishes. Their work concerns not only discovery and
classification of many still unknown species but also the
protection and conservation of many species whose habitats and
survival are at risk.
--Invertebrate zoologists are discovering many species of marine
invertebrates. Field research in the Florida Keys, for
instance, is documenting for the first time the extraordinary
biodiversity of marine mollusks.
These researchers, in studying endangered ecosystems, marine
species, and marine reserves, can use GIS to develop finer, tighter,
more precise datasets. Also, GIS analysis enables them to ask more
sophisticated and flexible questions, and to discover patterns, series,
and gradations.
Biodiversity conservation.--CBC investigators are conducting
important research field projects relying on the capacities of GIS/RS.
They include:
--Marine reserve networks.--Researchers in the CBC's marine program
are using GIS to analyze the physical, biological, and cultural
processes affecting coral reef systems in the Bahamas. GIS is
an indispensable tool in this research, because it allows the
researchers to integrate maps with sets of biophysical and
socioeconomic data and to create dynamic models for testing
hypotheses about marine reserve networks in a spatially
realistic framework.
--Humpback whales in Madagascar.--Collaborating researchers from the
American Museum and the Wildlife Conservation Society are using
GIS to track the migrations of Humpback whales in the western
Indian Ocean region. They are creating a database that contains
identification photos, biopsies, DNA sequences, and sighting
information for hundreds of individual whales. Being able to
identify individuals at the genetic level will enable
researchers to unravel the complex migration patterns of
Humpbacks with greater accuracy, thus improving conservation
practices and increasing understanding of marine sanctuaries,
the status of whales, their population structure, abundance,
and recent trends in their distribution.
--Biotic surveys and inventories.--The CBC conducts floral and faunal
surveys in ecologically threatened regions of Bolivia and
Vietnam. Both countries are extremely rich in biodiversity that
is threatened by high rates of deforestation and inadequate
conservation planning. These biotic surveys provide essential
data on the distribution and abundance of species, thus
enabling researchers to analyze the role of climate change on
land cover and develop plans to reduce threats to biodiversity.
They also create an opportunity for Museum researchers to train
local field biologists and conservation managers how to conduct
surveys using remote sensing data and biophysical measures and
how to apply results to the long-term management and
conservation of biodiversity.
Collections data and access.--Museum researchers can use GIS to
bring the Museum's vast collections alive and to increase exponentially
the analyses that researchers can carry out for conservation research
and decision making. By coupling GIS with the Museum's increasingly
strong web presence to provide easy access, researchers worldwide will
be able to pose more sophisticated questions and uncover new
connections and relationships among the collections data. For example,
by using georeferenced data, researchers can compare current maps with
legacy data to trace environmental changes over time.
Public education and outreach.--As an added benefit of the proposed
partnership with NOAA, the Museum plans to feature current NOAA-related
science and discovery in the renovated Hall of Ocean Life as well as in
its other educational programs and resources. With access to GIS
applications and datasets, the Science Bulletins, for example, can
promote public understanding of current science through global earth
science-related datasets, maps, and more.
These research applications for GIS and other technologies
demonstrate the Museum's enormous potential for using cutting-edge
tools to help advance environmental forecasting, provide decision
makers with reliable scientific information, and foster global
environmental stewardship.
We therefore request $1 million to join in partnership with NOAA to
advance basic and applied research that will strengthen resource
management and conservation of marine and coastal environments and
public understanding of these issues. In so doing, the Museum will
support its participatory share with funds from nonfederal as well as
federal sources. By generating critical scientific knowledge about the
vital role of ocean and marine environments, we can advance our shared
commitment to environmental stewardship so pivotal to our nation's and
our planet's health.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Gainesville, Florida
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the City of Gainesville, Florida, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this written testimony to you
today. The City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds in the fiscal
year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill to
assist with the following innovative projects the City is undertaking:
--The Joint Communications Project, to facilitate communication and
data sharing between our urban area public safety and court
system agencies. The project is an innovative crime data
gathering, reporting and training system that will include a
Geographic Information System (GIS), interactive Internet/
Intranet applications, Crime Mapping and automated reporting
through the use of laptop computers. The goal is to obtain
accurate, timely information that will be shared with the
appropriate criminal justice system entities and/or individuals
and to focus efforts on training others in this highly
technical area of law enforcement.
Joint Communications Project
The City of Gainesville seeks a federal funding strategy to
implement an innovative crime data gathering, reporting and training
system that will include a Geographic Information System, (GIS),
interactive Internet/Intranet applications, Crime Mapping and automated
reporting through the use of laptop computers. 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 goal is to obtain accurate, timely information that will be
shared with the appropriate criminal justice system entities and/or
individuals and to focus efforts on training others in this highly
technical area of law enforcement. At least one outcome of this effort
will be the facilitation of communication and data sharing 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. The estimated funds needed to continue these
efforts are $4.77 million.
The City of Gainesville, located in the north central portion of
the State of Florida, is a diverse community of 110,000 and serves as
the county seat for Alachua County and its additional 130,000
residents. Gainesville is the home of the University of Florida and
serves as the regional business center for the surrounding,
predominately rural counties. The community is served primarily by
three law enforcement agencies, the Gainesville Police Department, the
University Police Department and the Alachua County Sheriff's Office
representing approximately 625 sworn men and women. The City of
Gainesville has been a proven leader for many years in the field of law
enforcement with innovative programs developed here being adopted by
agencies from around the nation. Over the past 15 years the City has
been dedicated to the principles of Community Oriented Policing and is
one of the few agencies in the nation to apply its concepts department
wide. The City and County serve as the regional center for much of
rural north Florida's medical care, disaster management, and criminal
justice services.
The need for this system is driven by the lack of availability of
resources provided to tier 1 (population over 250,000) and tier 2 (seat
of government) cities that have been funded by prior Federal
initiatives. Although the region has a total population over 450,000
and geographic area of 8,500 square miles, it is not within the primary
grant recipient categories in previous efforts. However, considerable
efforts have been made to provide resources through other means and
utilizing existing resources. The estimated funds needed to continue
these efforts are $4.77 million.
This community faces problems endemic to communities nationwide. In
a time where the individual on the street can obtain any amount of
immediate and up to date information, the law enforcement officer must
often make decisions based on information that is incomplete or out of
date. The City of Gainesville has taken steps to attempt to partially
remedy this situation by combining communications systems with area law
enforcement in an effort allowing neighboring agencies to at least
communicate by voice transmission. What we are seeking is the funding
to take these initial steps to the next level providing the officer on
the street with clear, complete, and accurate information about the
situations they encounter. Included in this project is the benefit of
data sharing between agencies working in this community allowing better
informed decision making and improved distribution of resources. The
various portions of this program are designed to work together to
provide improved, more effective service to the residents of this
community.
The project consists of:
--Equipping law enforcement, fire personnel and emergency medical
responders with interoperable mobile data communications
system. ($3.54 million), and
--System wide upgrades to improve data collection, incident
assignment and dissemination of data to allow combined
operations. ($1.23 million).
Communications interoperability and accurate, timely data
collection are crucial to law enforcement and disaster response. Recent
events such as acts of domestic terrorism, natural disasters, anti-war
protests and mass casualty tragedies have highlighted the importance of
coordinated interactions among public safety agencies from all levels
of government. This ability to interoperate among public safety
responders can be measured in lives saved. Interoperability consists of
the ability of public safety personnel from one agency to communicate
by radio and data transmission with personnel from other agencies on
demand and in real time. To achieve interoperability requires improving
public safety wireless communications by addressing each of the five
areas of interoperability--coordination and partnerships, funding,
spectrum, standards and technology, and security.
The Alachua County Sheriff, with funding from the City and County,
operates a combined communication center constructed in fiscal year
2000 with $4.2 million in local funding. The center serves five law
enforcement agencies, eleven fire rescue agencies, the county
correctional facility, multiple government agencies of the city and
county, a regional airport, and an industrial fire brigade. The local
city owned utility, Gainesville Regional Utilities, provides an owned
and operated 800 Mhz. Trunked Radio System (voice-only) to all of these
agencies, along with another, the University of Florida's Police
Department. This project has demonstrated the nadir of the
interoperability standard promulgated by the FCC and other Federal
agencies. The infrastructure for digital interoperability has also been
built into the system, but thus far only one agency, because of its
small numbers of units, has been able to make that next step into
wireless data communications. The funds being sought for data
interoperability will take the system to the next step by enhancing
joint response capability, information sharing, data acquisition,
intelligence gathering and dissemination, data security, and agency
efficiency. While each entity alone and in joint projects such as the
communications center has attempted to address these shortcomings, the
high capital cost of these acquisitions is the major stumbling block to
providing the final step to what is truly the pinnacle of
interoperability achievement in a medium-sized community (225,000 total
county population).
The utilization of a mobile data system has numerous advantages for
the law enforcement officer as well as for the public. Removing the
reliance on strictly verbal communication by way of radio and widening
the information flow through direct data communications results in an
enhancement of the ability to successfully resolve problems in the
field. Laptop computers as in-car computer aided dispatch terminals
significantly increase the ability for public safety officers to
communicate.
Computers used in this manner can perform many important tasks. The
mobile data computers can send and receive information between the
officer and the dispatcher, including calls for service. Non-emergency
calls are forwarded from the dispatcher to the appropriate unit without
the need to transmit the information verbally over the radio, thus
saving ``air-time'' for use in emergency situations and reducing the
possibility of misunderstanding or receiving incorrect information.
This also allows an increase in the amount of information the officer
in the field has available in responding to situations. Additionally
there is the potential for a decrease in the need for additional
dispatchers even if the number of calls for service increases.
Through the use of mobile data computers officers and supervisors
can find the location of other officers and check on their current
status. Eliminating the need for officers to request this information
from a dispatcher gives all members of the agency a complete picture of
the availability of officers for calls for service. Officers can also
refer to information about calls awaiting dispatch and information
regarding previous calls for service. Officers would be able to view
past and current activity within his/her assigned area. Obtaining
pertinent information in a timely manner permits the officer(s) to make
more informed strategic and investigative decisions. This accessibility
to information would permit officers to better inform citizens and
business owners regarding activities. In addition officers would be
able to communicate vehicle-to-vehicle by sending messages from one
officer to another. This eliminates the need for officers to use ``air-
time'' with less important transmissions. Law enforcement officers can
conduct computer checks on wanted persons and stolen vehicles without
having to tie up a dispatcher. This allows officers to check a large
number of persons and vehicles, which can significantly increase the
number of people who are arrested for warrants and the number of
recovered stolen vehicles. A single dispatcher can only handle one (1)
request at a time, while the computer system can handle numerous
requests at the same time.
In a time where crime knows no geographical boundaries, the ability
to easily share timely information between differing agencies is of
great importance. The ability for field officers to share information
is a growing concern. Incidents spill across jurisdictional boundaries
and there is an increasing need to share resources between agencies.
The widening of the data pipeline to the field officer allows more
flexibility and increases the amount of information readily available.
The use of mobile data computers would allow increased and easier
information sharing which should improve the ability of officers to
respond to most situations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe
He Yung: my name is Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa
Valley Tribe. The Hoopa Valley Tribe is located in Northern California
and in the County of Humboldt. Our treaty was signed providing the
whole Hoopa Valley as a reservation. It was not until 1876 that an
executive order was signed acknowledging this treaty. Since first
European contact the culture and tradition remains to this day.
The culture of the Hoopa Valley People is a way of life. Our
ceremonial dances are healing or payer dances. These dances are held
for spiritual meaning performed at sacred places, to balance the world.
The Hoopa Valley People lived in harmony for over 10,000 years prior to
European Contact. We had our own laws and rules that our people
followed to live together and settle controversial issues by a form of
payment.
Currently we have a Tribal Court and Tribal Police Department that
operates on a daily basis and is utilized by the Hoopa and surrounding
Communities. We do not receive any of the monies for fines or tickets
issued on the Hoopa Valley Tribal Reservation this money is collected
by the State of California. This is not helping our community as far as
administering the law enforcement or Tribal Court Programs. Our
community looses approximately $750,000 annually in fines that should
be distributed back to the Hoopa Valley Tribe to offer more services to
our community. Further, the county refers probationary matters, such as
counseling and the like, to our Human Services Department without
paying part of expenses. This is becoming costly and burdensome to the
Tribe.
Law Enforcement operations consist of many diverse activities which
are directed toward the attainment of Department objectives. Activities
such as patrolling and issuing traffic citations are not objectives in
themselves, rather, they are methods of achieving the real objectives
of preventing and deterring crime, arresting criminal offenders, and
preventing traffic accidents.
Law Enforcement needs:
--15 Full Time Officers (at $36,000 per year) = $540,000.00
--6 Part Time Positions (at $18,000 per year) = $108,000.00
--7 Dispatchers
--2 Full-time: $22,880.00 = $160,160
--5 Part-time $11,440.00 = $57,200
--Vehicles: 3 at 35,000 = $105,000
--Gas/maintenance/other = $50,000
--Communications = $12,000.00
Tribal Court Needs
A new building. The current building is over 78 years old. We are
growing as a community and will need to grow to accommodate the needs
as follows:
--Automated Case Management System: $26,000
--Personnel and Automated Court Services: $395,000
--Law Library: $15,457
--Structural Modification: $1,336,000.00
--Tribal Court Improvements: $43,800
TRIBAL COURT NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Court's prospective improvements are listed
below according to the level of priority within each category. We have
included a brief summary of information, which follows each list.
Please note that some of the items are listed below as autonomous
functions and the court lists them in the interest of demonstrating
their supplemental impact upon the court's ability to function
effectively within our jurisdiction.
Unresolved Essential Tribal Court Needs
--Automated Case Management System $26,000.00
--Telephone System with Voice Mail
Our court currently operates on a hard paper file system with very
little computer management backup. This creates a burden upon the court
because it compromises the court's ability to effectively manage its
caseload. As our caseload begins to increase as a result of recent
legislative activity, the daily operations of the tribal court will
increasingly begin to diminish in the absence of the above listed
requirements.
Our current telephone system is antiquated and problematic. Our
Court employs the use of a single answering machine, which makes it
necessary to personally manage all incoming telephone calls, which is
often an ineffective use of the current clerk's time.
Funding Requirements for Personnel and Ancillary Court Services
Existing Positions
--Court Liaison Officer/Bailiff Subsidization $24,000.00
Proposed Positions
--Deputy Court Clerk $27,000.00
--Public Defender $45,000.00
--Probation Officer $40,000.00
--Mediator/Mediation Services Provider $70,000.00
--Associate Judge $60,000.00
--Legal Aid Provider $36,000.00
--Guardian Ad Litem $46,000.00
--Public Guardian $47,000.00
Our existing personnel have repeatedly proven themselves committed
both to the Tribal Court and to its community. Although the budget has
not previously allowed for any substantial increases, the tribal court
staff deserves to be adequately compensated for their exemplary work.
The Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department has recently provided the
court an opportunity to utilize a Court Liaison Officer who functions
as a liaison between the court, the law enforcement department, and the
community. The court would like to retain this myriad of services by
supplementing the CLO salary in conjunction with the Hoopa Valley
Tribal Police Department.
Law Library
--Three Computers $6,000.00
--One Computer Printer $257.00
--Subscription to Lexis-Nexis on line legal search engine $600.00
--Self Help Legal Aid Manuals $8,600.00
Our Court is required to provide a legal library to the public.
This library currently consists of the entire Hoopa Valley Tribal Law
and Order Code and the Indian Law Reporter. These often prove sorely
inadequate in meeting our public's needs. We would ultimately like to
provide three computers that would allow citizens to conduct legal
research via a computer generated legal search engine. We would also
like to empower our litigants to represent themselves using Self-Help
manuals that we would provide in our library.
Necessary Structural Modifications
--Secured Parking Area $10,000.00
--Court Renovation $126,000.00
--Juvenile Detention Facility $585,000.00
--Youth Regional Treatment Facility $615,000.00
The court staff currently utilizes 90 percent of the court's
available parking. This creates a problem for persons attempting to
access the court. Our courthouse also needs a great deal of structural
renovation. Our courthouse has had very basic maintenance services in
the 38 years that it has existed. Our building requires a great deal of
renovation and preventive maintenance in order to secure its continued
existence for the coming years. We have a new juvenile justice avenue
available in our court. The effectiveness of this juvenile court would
be tenfold with the use of ancillary programs such as a detention
facility and a treatment facility. The court is ready to assist
juveniles and the families of juveniles in need, and these ancillary
programs would greatly increase our effectiveness in doing so.
Tribal Court Improvements
Tables, Chairs, Desks $10,000.00
Fireproof File Cabinets $800.00
Metal Detector $5,000.00
Court Automobile $28,000.00
Some additional minor improvements such as these listed above would
assist in the daily functioning of the court. Our courtroom needs
plaintiff and defendant tables, and we are currently utilizing very old
court furniture that belongs to the state court. We need additional
file cabinets with the ability to protect our files from damage, and
security and convenience necessitate the additional listed items.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
and Wildlife Programs
The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning the National Sea Grant Program in the fiscal year 2004
budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NAUFWP represents approximately 55 university programs and their 440
faculty members, scientists, and extension specialists, and over 9,200
undergraduates and graduate students working to enhance the science and
management of fisheries and wildlife resources.
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is the main
research arm of NOAA, contributing to all other Line Offices and
Strategic Plan goals and providing the scientific basis for national
policy decisions in key areas. OAR supports a world-class network of
scientists and environmental research laboratories, and partnerships
with academia and the private sector. NAUFWP supports the President's
fiscal year 2004 request of $380.6 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research.
The National Sea Grant College Program provides essential academic
research, education, and extension services for the oceans community.
Sea Grant research is critical to the maintenance and improvement of
the nation's marine resources. We were concerned by the
Administration's proposal in fiscal year 2003 to move the Sea Grant
College Program to the National Science Foundation (NSF). While the
NSF's record of accomplishment in basic research is unparalleled, their
strength is not in the deployment of applied research, education, and
extension--the very characteristics that have made the National Sea
Grant College Program so successful. Unfortunately, the Sea Grant
program has been under funded for many years. Therefore, NAUFWP
strongly supports the maintenance of the Sea Grant Program in the NOAA
budget, and urges Congress to appropriate $68.41 million for this
program in fiscal year 2004.
NAUFWP supports the National Invasive Species Act Program, and the
Marine Aquaculture Program, two partnership programs within NOAA that
provide information to support policy and management decisions,
increase knowledge of coastal and marine ecosystems, and provide the
scientific basis for enhancing the Nation's marine economic sector.
NAUFWP supports the Administration's $1 million increase for the NOAA
Invasive Species Initiative, and the $2.6 million request for the NOAA
Marine Aquaculture Program. We urge Congress to appropriate these
amounts for fiscal year 2004.
Thank you for considering the views of universities with fisheries
and wildlife programs. We look forward to working with you and your
staff to ensure adequate funding for fish and wildlife research,
education, and conservation.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
Prepared Statement............................................. 302
American Bar Association, Prepared Statements..................279, 313
American Foreign Service Association, Prepared Statement......... 305
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement........... 321
American Rivers, Prepared Statement.............................. 301
American Sportfishing Association, Prepared Statement............ 282
Ashcroft, Hon. John, Attorney General of the United States,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Justice.......... 103
Prepared Statement........................................... 109
Association of Small Business Development Centers, Prepared
Statement...................................................... 307
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by.........................................1, 149
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, Prepared Statement........................... 318
Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator From Colorado,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 39
Carman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, United States Court of
International Trade, the Judiciary, Prepared Statement......... 266
City of Gainesville, Florida, Prepared Statement................. 324
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by....................................35, 84, 138
Donaldson, William H., Chairman, Securities and Exchange
Commission..................................................... 205
Prepared Statement........................................... 206
Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement...................... 284
Evans, Hon. Donald L., Secretary of Commerce, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Commerce.............................. 49
Prepared Statement........................................... 51
Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire:
Opening Statements.................................1, 103, 205, 223
Questions Submitted by.......................................29, 74
Remarks of................................................... 12
Heyburn, Honorable John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the
Budget, Judicial Conference of the United States, the
Judiciary, Prepared Statement.................................. 257
Hoopa Valley Tribe, Prepared Statement........................... 327
Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 42
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 85
Investment Company Institute, Prepared Statement................. 300
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 200
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 150
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, the Judiciary, Prepared Statement............. 277
Mecham, Leonidas Ralph, Director, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, the Judiciary, Prepared Statement................. 251
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland,
Questions Submitted by.........................................46, 89
Monmouth University School of Science, Technology and
Engineering, Prepared Statement................................ 319
Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Department of Justice........................... 223
Opening Statement............................................ 223
Prepared Statement........................................... 227
Murphy, Diana E., Chair, United States Sentencing Commission, the
Judiciary, Prepared Statement.................................. 271
National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs, Prepared Statement................................... 329
National Center for Victims of Crime, Prepared Statement......... 315
National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Prepared Statement 290
Powell, Hon. Colin L., Secretary of State, Office of the
Secretary, Department of State................................. 1
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 5
Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, Prepared
State-
ment........................................................... 291
Smith, Hon. Fern M., Director, Federal Judicial Center, the
Judiciary, Prepared Statement.................................. 268
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 147
The Asia Foundation, Prepared Statement.......................... 296
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement....................... 310
The Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement........................ 293
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement...................................................... 286
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 74
Backlog of Patent Applications................................... 57
Byrd Amendment................................................... 91
CIAO Moved to Homeland Security.................................. 56
Climate Change................................................... 55
Cost of Outside Contractor Patent Search......................... 96
Critical Infrastructure Protection............................... 75
Deducting 201 Duties From AD/CVD Margins......................... 94
Economic Growth.................................................. 52
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program........................... 92
Entry/Exit System Based on Biometrics............................ 56
Facilities, Infrastructure and Safety............................ 54
Fisheries........................................................ 55
Free Trade Concerns.............................................. 67
Homeland Security................................................53, 74
Import Administration............................................ 94
Customs Instructions......................................... 95
Import Monitoring Program........................................ 93
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program...................... 69
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)/Homeland
Security....................................................... 76
Law Enforcement Technologies Standards....................... 77
Progress Investigating WTC Attacks........................... 57
Warwick, Rhode Island Fire Investigation..................... 79
Work With INS on the Entry/Exit System....................... 56
World Trade Center Investigation............................. 78
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)........... 85
Paperless Patent Application Process............................. 83
Patent and Trademark Office:
Five Year Strategic Plan..................................... 80
Increase in User Fees........................................ 79
Pilot of Outside Contractor Patent Search........................ 99
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction.. 84
Reliability of Outside Contractor Patent Search.................. 97
Research and Development for Counterterrorism.................... 72
Search Contractors Owning Patents................................ 101
Softwood Lumber.................................................. 83
Steel Tariffs--WTO Decision...................................... 90
Stopping Pilot of Competitive-sourcing........................... 101
The 21st Century Strategic Plan.................................. 59
Tourism.......................................................... 85
Trade Adjustment Assistance...................................... 88
Trade Agreements--Impact on Sugar................................ 89
Transparency in Trade Negotiations............................... 89
201 Mid-term Review.............................................. 93
Validity of Outside Contractor Patent Search.....................96, 98
Working Capital Fund............................................. 84
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Changing to Meet:
Cyber Threats................................................ 230
Intelligence Threats......................................... 229
Terrorist Threats............................................ 228
Chicago Field Office............................................. 232
Cigarette Smuggling/Terrorism Financing.......................... 244
Clarification of Sources of Trilogy Reprogramming................ 246
Clarification:
Amount Requested for Information Technology in Fiscal Year
2004....................................................... 238
IAFIS Case in Los Angeles.................................... 239
Percentage Increase of Agents in Chicago Field Office
Focusing on Counterterrorism Prior to September 11 to May/
June of 2002, and During War With Iraq..................... 233
Counterintelligence............................................225, 236
Progress..................................................... 229
Threats...................................................... 229
Counterterrorism..........................................224, 231, 248
Progress..................................................... 227
Threat....................................................... 228
Training..................................................... 234
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)..................... 239
Cyber Crime...................................................... 226
Progress..................................................... 229
Threat....................................................... 229
Domestic Intelligence............................................ 237
Drugs/Terrorism Financing........................................ 240
FBI Culture...................................................... 234
Fiscal Year 2004:
Budget Request............................................... 230
Counterintelligence Budget Request........................... 229
Counterterrorism Request..................................... 228
Hydrogen Cyanide Weapons......................................... 243
Information Technology........................................... 245
Legats........................................................... 241
Most Recent Polygraph of Special Agent James J. Smith, Subject of
Espionage Case in Los Angeles, California...................... 237
Number of Agents in Chicago Field Office......................... 232
Other Programs................................................... 230
Percentage of Curriculum at Quantico Dedicated to
Counterterrorism (CT).......................................... 234
Reorganization................................................... 242
Status of the Trilogy Reprogramming Request...................... 238
Technology Progress............................................226, 230
Terrorism........................................................ 235
Terrorist Threat Integration Center/Foreign Terrorist Tracking
Task Force..................................................... 249
Trilogy.......................................................... 237
Office of the Attorney General
Additional Committee Questions................................... 138
Alien Assistance Program......................................... 126
America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.......... 127
Antitrust--Telecom............................................... 202
Attorney General's Opening Statement............................. 103
Chemical Weapons................................................. 129
Civil Rights...................................................108, 124
Clarification of Fiscal Year 2004 Trilogy Request and
Reprogramming.................................................. 137
Combating Corporate Fraud........................................ 114
Corporate Fraud.................................................. 120
Task Force................................................... 107
Crime-Free Rural States Program.................................. 199
Crimes Against Children.......................................... 108
Deported Individuals............................................. 125
DNA Initiative................................................... 194
Drug Enforcement................................................. 107
And Treatment................................................ 115
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriation..................... 123
Enhancing DNA Programs........................................... 117
Enron Task Force................................................. 120
FBI Enforcement of Immigration Laws.............................. 196
Federal Judges--New Mexico....................................... 128
First Responders................................................. 108
FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)..................... 202
Implementation of USA PATRIOT Act and Other Issues Related to War
on Terrorism................................................... 200
Imported Explosives.............................................. 201
Integrated Prevention Strategy................................... 106
Iraqi Task Force Plan............................................ 104
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program............ 200
Local Law Enforcement Funding.................................... 130
Managing the Department's Financial and information Resources,
Including Enhancing Information Security....................... 118
Mental Health Courts............................................. 146
National Security Council........................................ 121
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System................. 199
Need for Additional Permanent Judgeships in New Mexico........... 139
OIG Oversight of DEA and FBI..................................... 200
Operation Top Off................................................ 134
Other Important Activities....................................... 118
Preventing and Combating Terrorism, Including Counterintelligence 110
Preventing Crimes Against Children............................... 116
Privacy Act Exemptions........................................... 150
Project Safe Neighborhoods....................................... 108
Protecting the Judicial System and Managing Federal Detention and
Incarceration Capacity......................................... 117
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program........................128, 140
Risk of International Terrorism in the United States............. 133
Rocket Launchers and Airline Security............................ 133
Safe Explosives Act.............................................. 149
SCAAP and Southwest Border....................................... 138
Sleeper Cells.................................................... 203
State and Local Funding.......................................... 135
State Justice Institute.......................................... 127
Terrorism:
Prevention................................................... 105
Threat:
Integration Center....................................... 121
Warning System........................................... 131
Terrorist Threat................................................. 124
Integration Center.........................................122, 125
Budget................................................... 122
Tobacco Smuggling/Terrorist Financing............................ 130
Trilogy.......................................................... 136
2003 Supplemental Budget Request................................. 104
2004 Budget Request.............................................. 105
USA PATRIOT Act.................................................. 150
Village of Chickaloon and Village Forestry Department of Alaska.. 147
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 29
Aid to Turkey.................................................... 20
Antiterrorism Training........................................... 37
Berlin/Frankfurt Facilities...................................... 43
Compensation for Iranian Hostages................................ 26
Consular Officers................................................ 30
Cost Sharing Initiative.......................................... 42
Current Situation in Iraq........................................ 18
Defining Victory in Iraq......................................... 17
Diplomatic Readiness Initiative.................................. 29
Dolphin-Safe Tuna................................................ 46
Embassy Construction............................................. 32
Evaluating the Hiring Initiative................................. 44
Foreign Policy Advisor Responsibilities: Funding America's
Diplomacy Around the World..................................... 9
French Role in the Congo......................................... 25
History Regarding Regime Change in Iraq.......................... 19
Islamic Center in Turkey......................................... 24
Madrasas......................................................... 24
Personnel Placement Decisions.................................... 30
Post-Saddam Iraq................................................. 23
Relevance of the United Nations.................................. 21
Removing Saddam Hussein.......................................... 16
Renovation of U.N. Building in New York.......................... 25
Right-sizing..................................................... 31
Role for France and Germany...................................... 24
Russia and Iran's Nuclear Program................................ 36
Saddam Hussein and Weapons....................................... 13
Saudi Arabia and 9/11 Terrorists................................. 23
Situation in North Korea......................................... 27
Soft Targets..................................................... 32
Status of:
Ally Support................................................. 20
Other Arab Nations........................................... 22
The CEO Responsibilities: State Department and Related Agencies.. 6
USAID Facilities................................................. 43
Victory in Iraq.................................................. 14
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Effect of Sarbanes-Oxley on Corporate Directors.................. 219
Expensing Stock Options.......................................... 216
Fiscal 2003...................................................... 207
Fiscal 2004...................................................... 211
Hedge Funds...................................................... 213
Pay Parity....................................................... 213
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board........................ 217
Sarbanes-Oxley Act............................................... 218
Status of Enron Case............................................. 214