[Senate Hearing 105-756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-756, Pt. 1.
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4276/S. 2260
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Part 1 (Pages 1-811)
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Department of State
Federal Communications Commission
Nondepartmental witnesses
Securities and Exchange Commission
Small Business Administration
The judiciary
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46-090 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-057867-1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Subcommittee Staff
Jim Morhard
Kevin Linskey
Paddy Link
Dana Quam
Carl Truscott (Detailee)
Scott Gudes (Minority)
Emelie East
Dereck Orr (Detailee)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 24, 1998
Page
Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General............ 1
Thursday, February 26, 1998
Department of State: Secretary of State.......................... 85
Tuesday, March 3, 1998
Department of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 151
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 151
Immigration and Naturalization Service....................... 151
Wednesday, March 4, 1998
Department of Commerce: Secretary of Commerce.................... 261
Thursday, March 5, 1998
Department of Commerce: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administra- tion............................................... 333
Small Business Administration.................................... 367
Thursday, March 12, 1998
The judiciary:
Supreme Court of the United States........................... 393
U.S. courts.................................................. 401
Thursday, March 19, 1998
Federal Communications Commission................................ 435
Securities and Exchange Commission............................... 495
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 507
Department of Justice........................................ 507
Department of Commerce....................................... 508
Department of Justice........................................ 511
Department of State.......................................... 525
Department of Commerce....................................... 529
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.......... 548
Securities and Exchange Commission........................... 571
Related agencies............................................. 572
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:57 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hutchison, Campbell,
Bumpers, and Lautenberg.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
ACCOMPANIED BY:
STEPHEN R. COLGATE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
ADMINISTRATION
MICHAEL J. ROPER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONTROLLER
ADRIAN A. CURTIS, DIRECTOR, BUDGET STAFF
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. We will start this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State of the
Appropriations Committee. Please note that we are starting
early, thanks to the Attorney General's promptness.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the budget
proposal of the Justice Department. The budget of the Justice
Department has increased dramatically during my tenure as
chairman of this committee, but not as a result necessarily of
that, but as a result of the reflection of the policies of this
administration and this Congress to make a very strong
commitment to trying to address the issues of crime in this
country, especially drugs, terrorism, and the general
atmosphere on the streets of America.
In fact, I was looking at some of the numbers here. We have
gone from $13.8 billion in 1995 to a proposed request this year
of $20.9 billion. That is a $7.1 billion increase in 4 years,
which is about 60 percent, which is a huge expansion in the
resources committed in this area. It has been across the board.
It has been in the area of prisons. It has been in the area of
the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA]. It has been in the
area of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. It has been
in the area of the general activities of the Justice
Department.
I guess the question which the consumers would want to ask
the Attorney General, had they the opportunity, is with this
dramatic expansion of resources, what are we getting as
results? Are we able to manage this commitment of new resources
effectively, and are we getting a return for our dollars?
It has been a pleasure to work with the Attorney General
over the last few years as we have pursued this action of
dramatically expanding our commitment to fighting crime. Her
enthusiasm, energy, and direction has been acknowledged by all
who have been involved in the day-to-day operation of crime
fighting in this country, and I appreciate her efforts and
especially her support of some of the congressional
initiatives, especially in the area of counterterrorism. So
with that, I will yield to Senator Campbell, if he has any
opening comments.
Senator Campbell. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it,
and I certainly appreciate seeing Attorney General Reno here.
I had a few questions that I will get into later, but I
certainly am aware, as you are, of the increased spending and
how it is going up. I worked very closely with our Rocky
Mountain HIDTA, as an example, that was just established a
couple of years ago and the funding we put into that HIDTA and
most of the other ones has been increased. I think that being
on the ground level, particularly when we talk about the
growing problem of methamphetamines, which is a very fast-
moving kind of a thing, and certainly growing while other use
of drugs is going down, I can see that it is easy to justify
the amount of money we are putting in those programs.
I was also concerned with the amount of crime going up in
Indian country. As you know, we increased the amount in the
budget that would go into fighting the drug war there and
juvenile gangs, as well. I guess it is just a whole new area.
These young gangs from the urban areas are moving out to Indian
country to new and fertile ground.
So I just wanted to tell the Attorney General, I understand
that we have to get the best use of taxpayers' money, but from
my perspective, if we are going to win the drug war, I fully
recognize we cannot do it all from Washington. An awful lot of
these things have to be done in the local communities and
certainly churches and schools and Boy Scouts and everybody
else have a role to play, but I just wanted to say that I think
that you are doing a very good job, particularly in that crime
fighting area that deals with our communities and I wish you
well this coming year. Thank you.
Ms. Reno. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Attorney General.
prepared statement
Ms. Reno. Senators, thank you very much. It has been a real
pleasure to work with the committee, to do it in a thoughtful
way, in a constructive way, and I look forward to furthering
our working relationship in this next year. There are so many
critical issues that you both touched on, cybercrime,
terrorism, drugs, drug trafficking, the problem of crime in
Indian country, and I am always available to discuss and to
work with you on how we fund these issues and then how we
manage the moneys you give us the right way.
In the interest of time, I will attempt to summarize my
written statement but would appreciate your including it in the
official record.
Senator Gregg. Of course.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Reno
Good morning. Chairman Gregg, Senator Hollings, members of the
subcommittee, it is a pleasure once again to appear before you to
present the President's budget request for the Department of Justice.
For fiscal year 1999, the President's budget includes $20.9 billion for
the Department of Justice--an $877 million or 4.4 percent increase over
last year--to enhance our fight against youth violence, cybercrime,
illegal drugs, illegal immigration, and other crime problems. Of this
amount, $18.1 billion is discretionary funding--a 4.9 percent increase
over 1998.
Since I became Attorney General in 1993, funding for the Justice
Department has increased more than 87 percent--due in large part to the
efforts of this subcommittee.
I believe our investment is paying off. Over the past several
years, we have witnessed a decrease in violent crime, and juvenile
crime appears to be turning around. We are continuing our fight against
drug trafficking and abuse. We have added border patrol agents in
record numbers, and removed criminal aliens at a record pace. And, we
have begun a concerted effort to combat computer crime, and protect our
nation from the threat of terrorist attack. Yes, we are moving in the
right direction. But, more work still needs to be done.
The budget I present to you today does just that--it builds on our
past successes and helps to prepare us for the law enforcement
challenges of the twenty-first century.
fighting crime and youth violence
Our top task is to make certain that crime continues to fall. At
the cornerstone of this effort is our commitment to place 100,000
police officers on the streets of America by the year 2000. The budget
before you seeks $1.4 billion for the Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) Program to fund an estimated 16,000 officers in fiscal
year 1999--bringing the total to 99,000 funded officers one full year
before our pledge to fund 100,000.
But, to sustain our success in fighting crime, we must also
continue taking aim at youth violence. For the second year in a row,
juvenile arrest rates for violent crime have fallen, and arrest rates
for juvenile homicides have fallen for a third year in a row. While
this is encouraging news, youth violence is still far too prevalent in
too many of our communities--in fact, arrest rates for juvenile violent
crime and homicide are still substantially above the levels of the mid-
1980's. Gangs are appearing in cities and towns across the nation and
we must take a reasoned approach to both preventing and punishing youth
crime.
Consistent with the administration's anti-gang and youth violence
bill proposed last year, the Department's fiscal year 1999 budget seeks
to focus resources on three youth violence prevention and intervention
grant programs and restructure current juvenile justice programs. Our
request includes nearly $500 million in new initiatives, program
enhancements, and program restructuring aimed at fighting crime and
youth violence. Specifically, we are requesting:
Youth violence/gangs/at risk youth
$100 million for a program that would provide grants to State and
local prosecutor offices to fight youth drug, gang, and violence
problems through the successful identification and rapid prosecution of
young, violent offenders.
$50 million for a youth violence court program to increase the
speed, efficiency, and effectiveness with which youth are processed and
adjudicated within the justice system.
And, $95 million for a title V grant program--we call the at-risk
children's program--to support juvenile crime intervention programs to
fight truancy and school violence and strengthen appropriate curfew
initiatives.
Restructuring current juvenile justice programs
A total of $176 million is requested for juvenile justice programs
funded under the restructuring. The new programs created with the
redirected funds include $89 million for a new juvenile justice formula
grant program; $45 million for a new discretionary grant program to
develop, test, and demonstrate promising new programs; $17 million for
an incentive grants program for seven authorized purposes ranging from
crime prevention to accountability-based sanctions; and $6 million for
an Indian tribal grants program.
Community prosecutors program
$50 million is requested to establish a community prosecutors
program to increase substantially the number of local prosecutors
interacting directly with police officers and community residents to
identify and solve specific crime problems in their neighborhoods.
Around the country--in places like Portland, Oregon; Austin, Texas; and
Indianapolis, Indiana, early efforts at community prosecution are being
deployed and it appears to work. With this funding, you would provide
us an opportunity to comprehensively fund and test this very promising
strategy.
Violence against women
To combat violence against women, we are requesting $271 million.
And, following your lead, we have included targeted set-asides for
civil legal assistance programs, research concerning violence against
women, and the U.S. Attorneys' domestic violence unit in the District
of Columbia. In addition, we have targeted $10 million in discretionary
funds for a new program--Project Safe Start--which seeks to reduce the
impact of family, school, and community violence on young children.
Technology to combat crime
We've heard from local law enforcement that they need help in
applying technology to the investigative function--using simulation
modeling, computer forensics, crime mapping, and improved suspect
identification technologies to solve crimes--and we're investing in
this area now. For fiscal year 1999, we are seeking an additional $12.5
million to further upgrade crime technology, such as DNA testing and
identification, and criminal records and history programs.
I am convinced we can build on our success in fighting youth and
violent crime with the right resources, the administration's approach
to any new juvenile justice legislation, and new relationships between
prosecutors and the people they serve.
fighting cybercrime and protecting our critical infrastructure
Our second focus--and one of the greatest challenges of the next
century--will be to address cybercrime before it can become an epidemic
within the United States or a pandemic worldwide. Every day, the United
States relies more heavily upon its interconnected telecommunications
and automated information systems for basic services such as energy,
banking/finance, transportation, and defense. Reliance on, and the use
of, computers and the information superhighway is becoming a standard
part of life for most Americans. As such, we must be certain they are
safe and secure.
For fiscal year 1999, the Department is seeking $64 million in
increased funding to expand efforts to protect the Nation's critical
infrastructures from cyber-attacks and to combat cybercrime.
These additional resources will support 75 new FBI agents and 24
assistant U.S. Attorneys to track down and prosecute cyber criminals.
The FBI will focus its new resources on the formation of 6 additional
computer investigations and infrastructure threat assessment squads
(CITA) in cities around the country. The initiative also includes $10
million in additional funding for the FBI's Computer Investigations and
Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center (CITAC)--which is being
restructured and renamed the National Infrastructure Protection Center
(NIPC)--to expand operations, develop an early warning system, and
conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments; $1.55 million in
increased resources is also included for the Criminal Division's
computer crime and intellectual property section (CCIPS)--a critical
partner in the effort to help Federal, State and local, and foreign
agencies prosecute high-tech crime, and create the necessary
infrastructure--legal, technical, and operational--to pursue criminals
who attack or employ global networks.
For the counterterrorism (CT) fund, the cybercrime initiative
includes $33.6 million for activities related to the protection of the
Nation's critical infrastructures. Most of these funds will be needed
for the NIPC. Some of these funds could be used to reimburse other
agencies. An additional $3.1 million will ensure the continuation of
essential Department of Justice functions during an emergency. In
addition to the requested enhancements, $16 million is recurred in the
CT fund to continue to equip and train State and local responders to
terrorist incidents.
curbing drug trafficking and abuse
To continue to fight drug trafficking and abuse, the budget before
you seeks $167.25 million in increased resources in fiscal year 1999--
allowing us to hire more drug enforcement agents and prosecutors, and
increase drug testing and intervention programs. This balanced
investment will decrease drug use and help stem the violence it brings
into our communities.
Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will grow by
4.6 percent to $1.25 billion, with program enhancements totaling $64
million. These additional resources will support 100 more DEA agents to
attack methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse; 54 more
agents for the Caribbean corridor strategy; 95 more agents to intensify
efforts against heroin traffickers; 3 more agents to support an on-
going classified project; and 5 agents to foster and strengthen foreign
cooperative drug investigations against Asian heroin traffickers.
Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64 assistant
U.S. Attorneys and 5 Criminal Division attorneys to pursue and
prosecute drug traffickers, and to implement our national strategy
against methamphetamine.
We also want to help State and local agencies conduct vital drug
testing and intervention programs--and have included $94 million in
additional grants to State and local agencies and Indian tribal
governments to implement comprehensive systems of drug testing, drug
treatment, and graduated sanctions; as well as expansion of the
residential substance abuse treatment program.
In addition, our request includes a language change to give States
the flexibility to use their prison grant and residential substance
abuse treatment funds to provide drug testing and treatment to
offenders. A recently released report by the National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, which draws
heavily from national data compiled by the Department's Bureau of
Justice Statistics, confirmed that fighting drugs in our prisons and
providing comprehensive testing and treatment for prisoners is
absolutely critical to keeping drugs off the streets.
The study found that 80 percent of people serving time in our State
and Federal prisons either were high at the time they committed their
crimes, stole property to buy drugs, violated drug or alcohol laws, or
have a long history of drug or alcohol abuse. And, parolees who
continue to use drugs are much more likely to commit crimes that will
send them back to jail.
The findings here are clear and support what I have long suspected:
to break the cycle between drugs and criminal activity, we must first
break the drug habits of prisoners. For this reason, drug testing and
treatment are sound, appropriate uses of correctional grant funds.
Clearly, our battle against drugs requires a balanced approach and
our budget seeks to provide just that--through tougher enforcement and
better intervention, we can get drug use to fall, and keep it falling.
protecting our borders and providing better service
For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the budget I
present to you today seeks a record $4.2 billion--or 10.2 percent more
than last year. Our fiscal year 1999 request seeks to strengthen
proven, existing programs and to implement new measures that will guard
against illegal immigration and promote legal entry into the United
States.
Landmark immigration legislation enacted in 1996 has challenged the
Department to carry out mandated responsibilities with far-reaching
impacts. In response to this challenge, the Department has greatly
enhanced border management in the southwestern United States, and has
reengineered the naturalization process to accommodate millions of new
applicants.
With the support and leadership of this subcommittee, the INS has
nearly doubled its border patrol agent workforce since 1993, and has
introduced innovative deterrents and advanced technologies to address
illegal immigration at all borders of the United States.
For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $272.5 million in
increased funding for ``force-multiplying'' technologies and 1,000 new
border patrol agents. Funding will also be dedicated to programs to
detain and remove illegal aliens, including criminal aliens; to address
the proliferation of alien smuggling by strategically placing INS
personnel along major smuggling transportation corridors; and, to
ensure the integrity of the naturalization process. Immigration fee
resources will support increased airport staffing to more quickly
inspect passengers, and enhance document and benefit fraud
investigations.
Clearly we have not resolved all of the problems that face this
country in deterring illegal entry, nor have we completely resolved the
problems to ensure adjudication and naturalization for legally admitted
aliens eligible for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
But, as we recognized in 1994 when we launched our comprehensive
Southwest border strategy--the investment necessary would be multi-year
and multi-faceted. This budget request continues the measured, prudent
growth required to allow a reengineered Immigration and Naturalization
Service to cope with the challenges it will face in the 21st century.
targeting crime in indian country
As crime rates in the rest of the country continue to fall,
homicide and violent crime rates on many Indian lands are rising. Law
enforcement in Indian country is inadequate and needs immediate
attention. Indian lands have only 1.3 police officers per 1,000
citizens, compared with an average of 2.9 officers per 1,000 citizens
in non-Indian areas with similar population densities. And, the few
jails on Indian lands fall far short of basic standards in such areas
as staff and inmate safety.
The budget I present to you today includes $157 million in new and
redirected funds as part of a joint $182 million initiative with the
Department of the Interior to address these serious public concerns.
The goal of this multi-year initiative is to raise the level of Indian
country law enforcement to national standards in such areas as the
number of officers per capita, the training and equipment of tribal law
enforcement officers, and the quality and availability of detention
facilities. In fiscal year 1999, the initiative will be funded
primarily through anti-crime grants provided directly to Indian
jurisdictions.
Because the Federal Government has the responsibility to
investigate and prosecute major crimes in most Indian country, this
initiative will support 30 additional FBI agents to enhance Indian
country investigations and 31 positions to improve victim/witness
assistance services in Indian country. Twenty-six assistant U.S.
Attorneys will also be added to target violent crime, gang-related
violence, and juvenile crime on Indian lands.
And, within the Office of Justice Programs and the COPS program,
grant funds have been targeted and set aside for direct support to
Indian country--$10 million of the new drug testing and intervention
program; $20 million of the title V at-risk children's program; $52
million of the State correctional grant program; and $54 million of the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program. In addition, our
initiative includes $10 million to establish the Indian tribal courts
program--a new discretionary program to assist tribal courts which have
experienced unparalleled growth in their workload.
The crisis in law enforcement affecting Indian country demands a
Federal response. This initiative is a small, but necessary first step.
supporting other justice department initiatives
fighting hate crimes
Despite the best efforts of political and community leaders to
promote tolerance and understanding, hate crimes continue to plague the
Nation. The Department is seeking $5.6 million in new resources for its
hate crimes initiative--which includes the formation of local working
groups in which Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials, as
well as community leaders, meet to address hate crimes in a
comprehensive manner. Included within these resources is $3.2 million
and 15 positions for the Community Relations Service to respond to
increasing demands for its services, which include conciliation efforts
associated with heightened racial and ethnic tension throughout the
country. The Department will also be redirecting, from 1998 base
resources, 40 FBI agents and 10 prosecutors toward hate crime cases.
providing effective defensive civil litigation
In defensive civil litigation cases, the Department's lawyers
represent the United States in its capacity as employer, regulator,
administrator of Federal benefits, law enforcer, contractor, and
property owner. These attorneys protect not only the fiscal interests
of the United States, but also intangible interests in the
implementation of lawful Government policies and practices. Yet, the
one aspect these diverse types of defensive litigation have in common
is that they are not discretionary--if the United States is sued, the
Department of Justice must defend. Our civil defensive litigation
caseload is burgeoning, and the dollars at stake run in the billions.
The budget before you seeks $16.6 million for critical program needs to
address this rising caseload and effectively defend the United States
Government.
building our law enforcement infrastructure
A substantial infrastructure investment continues to be needed to
maintain our law enforcement programs, and to ensure the health and
safety of our law enforcement personnel. The Department's fiscal year
1999 budget request includes $753.5 million in new initiatives and
program enhancements to address a wide variety of infrastructure and
technology needs. While the Department is making progress, its
automation and communications capabilities are still outdated. Let me
highlight just a few of the items:
Narrowband communications
$72.5 million is requested to enable law enforcement personnel who
use Federal spectrum when communicating to narrow the bandwidth used
for transmitting radio signals, as required under the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration Organization Act. This
is a new account, and will be managed within main Justice. In addition
to the requested enhancement, the Department's participating agencies
have transferred base resources to establish the new account.
Telecommunications carrier compliance
We are again requesting $100 million in additional funds to
reimburse private telecommunications carriers, manufacturers, and
support service providers for equipment modifications made to ensure
law enforcement's continued ability to conduct court-authorized
electronic surveillance. I believe the FBI, in concert with industry,
has now developed an implementation plan that will permit the process
to move forward. We cannot afford to delay any longer.
U.S. Marshals
For the U.S. Marshals Service, the request includes $32.7 million
in infrastructure improvements in fiscal year 1999. Within this amount
is $11 million and 82 deputy positions to continue to ensure the safety
and security of the judicial family in Federal facilities, including
the staffing of new courthouses. Another $1.6 million is included to
enhance and modernize the marshals electronic surveillance unit (ESU),
whose primary mission is to provide electronic surveillance and
intercept support. Last year, ESU's assistance in 917 cases resulted in
the arrest of 486 fugitives. This program increase will help us to do
more.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
For the Immigration and Naturalization Service, $141 million in
infrastructure improvements are requested in fiscal year 1999--
including the construction of new border patrol facilities and
additional detention bedspace to keep pace with the record expansion of
the service over the past several years.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
And, for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, $300 million is included
for full construction of three correctional institutions and partial
construction of a fourth--the capacity of which is necessary for the
absorption of the District of Columbia sentenced felon population.
conclusion
We are asking for more than $20 billion because we face so many
challenges. We are seeking funding to expand our efforts in fighting
juvenile crime; to launch a multi-agency initiative to reduce violence
on Indian lands; and, to ensure that we stay ahead of the curve in
investigating and prosecuting cyber-criminals.
The budget I present to you today will help us address our ongoing
challenges and prepare for new ones. This fiscal year is the last in
the twentieth century--and, it is squarely aimed at the law enforcement
challenges of the new millennium.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
Ms. Reno. For fiscal year 1999, as you have indicated,
Senator Gregg, we are requesting $20.9 billion, an $870
million, or 4.4 percent increase in funding over last year.
Since I became Attorney General in 1993, funding for the
Justice Department has increased more than 87 percent, due in
large part to the efforts of this subcommittee.
I believe our investment is paying off. Over the past
several years, we have witnessed a decrease in violent crime
and juvenile crime appears to be on the decline. We are
continuing our fight against drug trafficking and abuse. We
have added Border Patrol agents in record numbers and removed
criminal aliens at a record pace. We are continuing a concerted
effort to combat computer crime and have taken critical steps
to protect our Nation from the threat of terrorist attack.
Yes; we are moving in the right direction, but I think we
have more to do. The budget I present to you today does just
that. It builds on our past successes and helps us prepare for
the law enforcement challenges of the 21st century.
fighting Crime
One of our continuing top tasks at the Justice Department
is to do everything in our power to see that the crime rate
continues to fall. At the cornerstone of this effort is our
commitment to place 100,000 police officers on the streets of
America by the year 2000. The budget before you seeks $1.4
billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program,
or the COPS Program, to fund an estimated 16,000 officers in
fiscal year 1999, bringing the total to 99,000 funded officers
1 full year before our pledge to fund 100,000.
But to sustain our success in fighting crime, we must also
continue our efforts aimed specifically at youth violence. For
the second year in a row, juvenile arrest rates for violent
crime and homicides have fallen. While this is encouraging
news, youth violence is still far too prevalent in too many of
our communities and the number of young people will increase in
this Nation in the immediate future in significant proportions.
Youth violence grant programs
Consistent with the administration's antigang and youth
violence bill proposed last year, the Department's fiscal year
1999 budget seeks to focus additional resources on three youth
violence grant programs and restructure current juvenile
justice programs. Our request includes nearly $500 million in
targeted program enhancements and restructuring aimed at
preventing and fighting juvenile crime and youth violence.
These initiatives include $100 million in grants to State
and local prosecutors' offices to fight youth drug gang and
violence problems through earlier intervention and the
identification and rapid prosecution of young violent
offenders; $50 million for innovative court programs to better
handle and hold accountable young violent offenders within the
justice system; and $95 million to fight truancy and school
violence and strengthen anticrime after-school programs.
Community prosecution
Our request also seeks to change the way that prosecutors
across America serve their communities by providing $50 million
in grants to increase the number of local prosecutors
interacting directly with police officers and community
residents to identify and solve crime problems in their
neighborhoods. Around the country, in places like Portland, OR;
Austin, TX; and Indianapolis, IN; early efforts at community
prosecution are being deployed and it appears to work. With
this funding, you will provide us an opportunity to fund and
test this very promising strategy.
violence against Women
To combat violence against women, we are requesting $271
million, and following your lead, we have included targeted
set-asides for civil legal assistance programs, research
concerning violence against women, and the U.S. attorneys
domestic violence unit in the District of Columbia.
Cybercrime
Another central focus of our request and one of the
greatest challenges of the next century is to address
cybercrime before it can become an epidemic within the United
States or around the world. Every day, the United States relies
more heavily upon its interconnected telecommunications and
automated information systems for basic services, such as
energy, banking/finance, transportation, and defense. As such,
we must be certain that they are safe and secure. For fiscal
year 1999, the Department is seeking $64 million in increased
funding to expand efforts to protect the Nation's critical
infrastructures from cyber attacks and to combat cybercrime.
As you know, I am scheduled to appear before the committee
again on March 31 specifically on counterterrorism initiatives
and I look forward to discussing our counterterrorism and
technology crime plan in further detail then.
Drug initiative
To continue to fight drug trafficking and abuse, the budget
before you seeks $167 million in increased resources in fiscal
year 1999, allowing us to hire more drug enforcement agents and
prosecutors and increase drug testing and intervention
programs. The balance of this investment will decrease drug use
and help stem the violence it brings into our communities.
Funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration will grow
by 4.6 percent to $1.25 billion, with program enhancements
totaling $64 million. Included within these additional
resources are funds to support 100 more DEA agents to attack
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse, 54 more
agents for the Caribbean corridor strategy, and 94 more agents
to intensify efforts against heroin traffickers.
Our drug initiative will also support the hiring of 64
assistant U.S. attorneys and five Criminal Division attorneys
to pursue and prosecute drug traffickers and to implement our
national strategy against methamphetamine.
We also want to help State and local agencies conduct vital
drug testing and intervention programs and have included $94
million in additional grants to State and local agencies to
implement comprehensive systems of drug testing, drug
treatment, and graduated sanctions.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
For the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], we
are requesting a record $4.2 billion, or 10.2 percent more than
last year, to strengthen proven, existing programs and to
implement new measures that will guard against illegal
immigration and promote legal entry into the United States.
With the support and leadership of this committee, the INS has
nearly doubled its Border Patrol agent work force since 1993
and has introduced innovative deterrents and advanced
technologies to address illegal immigration at all borders of
the United States.
For fiscal year 1999, the Department requests $272.5
million in increased funding for force multiplying technologies
and 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. Funding will also be
dedicated to programs to detain and remove illegal aliens,
including criminal aliens, to address the proliferation of
alien smuggling by strategically placing INS personnel along
major smuggling transportation corridors, and to ensure the
integrity of the naturalization process.
Clearly, we have not resolved all of the problems that face
this country in deterring illegal entry, nor have we completely
resolved the problems to ensure adjudication and naturalization
for illegally admitted aliens eligible for benefits under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. But as we recognized in 1994
when we launched our comprehensive Southwest border strategy,
the investment necessary would be multiyear and multifaceted.
This budget request continues the measured, prudent growth
required to allow a reengineered Immigration and Naturalization
Service to cope with the challenges that we will face in the
21st century.
Infrastructure
The budget before you also seeks $753.5 million in new
initiatives and program enhancements to address critical
infrastructure needs fundamental to the effective enforcement
of our Nation's law. Rebuilding the law enforcement
infrastructure of Justice agencies continues to be a personal
focus of mine, and while we are making progress, our automation
and communication capabilities are still outdated. I have
stated in earlier appearances before this committee, without
the proper tools to get the job done, current, let alone
additional attorneys, agents, and inspectors will be less
efficient and less effective in performing their duties.
For fiscal year 1999, we are asking for more than $20
billion because we face so many challenges. We are seeking
funding to launch a comprehensive national hate crimes
initiative, reduce violent crime on Indian lands, address the
burgeoning defensive civil litigation caseload, and build
additional capacity in the Federal prison system. The budget I
present to you today will help us address our ongoing
challenges and prepare for new ones, and I look forward to
working with you as we address these issues.
COPS Program
Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Attorney General.
On the COPS Program, which is at $1.4 billion again this
year, we are starting to get to the point where the towns and
the cities that have used these new police officers are hitting
their phaseout. What experience are we getting relative to
retaining these police officers, or do you have that data yet,
once they lose the Federal funds?
Ms. Reno. To date, the COPS office has provided grants to
police to add over 70,000 officers. When they accepted the
grant, they committed to retaining these positions after the
cutoff of Federal funds and that was the plan under the COPS
grant program. A number of cities and towns have come to us
saying, ``We are not going to have the money to do that,'' and
we have been working with them, trying to address those issues.
The COPS office consistently educates and counsels local
offices about this requirement to ensure that they are
adequately planning for the future.
I do not have a record of who has phased out because,
again, it is part of their commitment under the grants program.
But what I hear anecdotally when I visit at the International
Association of Chiefs of Police or the National Sheriffs
Organization, is that they are making every effort to maintain
the police officers, and the cities and counties across America
are recognizing that it is an excellent investment.
Senator Gregg. I think last year, and I am not sure of
this, but I think you put in $430 million to extend the program
in rural areas. I believe that was the number. In any event,
that showed me that we have got problems coming at us. I assume
we are going to hear the same thing from the urban areas.
My sense is that most of these communities saw the program
as being one that when the Federal dollars stopped, they were
no longer under the obligation to keep the police officer. I do
not want to get into the position where this program becomes an
entitlement that pays the police officer on the street through
Federal funds. Could the Department get us an evaluation as to
what the expected attrition rate is going to be as we move off
of the Federal program completely and into the communities
having to pay these officers, and whether we are going to be
able to retain them? I think there are 84,000 of them right now
and you are asking for 99,000 under this bill.
Ms. Reno. We will get you as clear a figure as we can on
that. I would point out that this is a difficult area because
crime has gone down in some communities so significantly that
police officers say we do not need the additional police, and
we have got to make sure that the moneys are spent as wisely as
possible. But I will get you the figures on attrition and on
who has phased out, because you have the initial supplemental
police hiring from 1993 and 1994 and we will provide you with
those figures as soon as we can.
[The information follows:]
Attrition Rate for COPS Funded Officers
The COPS Office reviewed a sample 5,259 annual reports from
grantees and found that 96 percent indicated they were planning
to retain their officers. As a result of this sampling, we
expect the majority of COPS grantees to retain their officers.
All COPS grantees are required to retain the additional
officers hired with COPS grants at the conclusion of federal
funding. They are aware of this requirement and will make plans
for retention accordingly. We will work with communities on a
case-by-case basis if they experience some unforeseen
circumstance that makes retention of COPS-funded officers
difficult.
Fiscal year 1998 is the first year that COPS grants will
begin to expire and very few have expired so far. COPS Office
staff have been available to provide guidance to grantees
needing assistance in meeting the retention commitment. The
COPS Office is developing a ``Retention Tool Kit'' which will
consist of information for grantees about different strategies
and examples of what other agencies are doing to retain their
officers. The COPS Office also uses current publications and
training opportunities to help grantees identify new ways to
keep their COPS-funded officers.
Senator Gregg. I thought one of the things we thought was a
factor of crime rates dropping was putting these police
officers on the street. Is the view that the crime reduction is
more of a demographic event or is it more of a policing event?
Ms. Reno. No; it is that they did the job. I think what one
sheriff indicated to me, he said, we have done such a good job,
we can control it with the force that we have now.
Senator Gregg. I do think this is a policy issue we are
going to have to address, because obviously, if we end up with
one-half of these 100,000 police officers being let go, we have
to go back and take another look at the approach.
Drug interdiction
On the issue of drug interdiction, you mentioned the
Caribbean corridor program. There has been a lot of anecdotal
reporting that a whole series of nations in the Caribbean have
essentially been taken over, for all intents and purposes, by
the drug cartels, that many of the responsible leaders in the
Caribbean live under tremendous threat--physical threat. We
have a serious problem in Puerto Rico, and Mexico, it appears,
is now the primary transit point and the primary center for the
cartels, maybe even replacing the Colombia cartels.
My question is twofold. First, what is the situation with
Mexico? We are nearing a decision on certification. We are
going to have that on the floor of the Senate, probably before
we adjourn for recess. What is the Department's position on
certification? Is Mexico doing an adequate job of trying to
police itself? The second one is, what should we do in the
Caribbean beyond just putting personnel down there, which is
nice, but I am not sure it is addressing the underlying
problem.
Ms. Reno. Let me present the whole picture, as I see it,
because sometimes when we take a piece here and a piece there,
we lose sight of the real problem. I come at it from my vantage
point of having been a prosecutor in Miami in the late 1970's
and early 1980's when drug trafficking descended upon south
Florida, and we were at the center of it. I watched the Federal
Government come in with additional resources, extensive
resources, and I saw a change. But then I heard from my
colleagues that it had moved up the Atlantic coast or over to
the gulf coast.
As you watched pressures placed there, as you watched the
change in traffic patterns, as you watched some of our
successes in Colombia, you see pressures being brought to bear
on the Southwest border because of the trafficking patterns
through Mexico. You put pressure there and you begin to see the
buildup in the Caribbean. You put pressure there and suddenly
south Florida talks about the buildup there.
So what I have tried to do is, from a law enforcement
perspective, pull the relevant law enforcement agencies
together on a regular basis, together with appropriate
representatives of the Department of Defense and other
agencies, to plan the southern frontier initiative, both with
respect to maintaining pressure on the Southwest border, of
working with the Mexican Government in identifying
organizations and taking effective action against them, and
continuing our effort in Colombia to work with the police and
the Fiscale to dismantle the organizations, and to focus on the
Caribbean and what can be done there.
Caribbean
The Department's efforts to curb the trafficking in the
Caribbean began several years ago. For example, the FBI has
reallocated 77 positions from base resources to establish three
new resident agencies in Puerto Rico. DEA has reprogrammed 12
agents and is asking for more. But it will not be effective for
us to deal just with Puerto Rico. As you point out, just to put
additional bodies there will not make any difference if we do
not address the picture as a whole. So we are working together
in an initiative that includes the island of Hispaniola and we
are coordinating resources in that regard.
We see the movement and we know we can have an impact, and
our great challenge will be to keep one step ahead so that we
are there when they start to move. We are also working with
countries throughout the Caribbean to ensure that they have
laws and that they implement laws focused on asset forfeiture,
money laundering, and other tools necessary to do the job, and
I have had some excellent meetings with, for example, the
minister of justice from Trinidad and Tobago, who wants to work
with us, is asking for assistance and support, and we are
trying to make sure that our resources are such that we can
coordinate with his government and other governments in the
Caribbean.
I think it is a matter of keeping the pressure on in terms
of giving them the tools and helping them implement those tools
necessary to do the job, of using our resources as wisely as
possible throughout the southern frontier, and I think we have
and will continue to make a difference.
certification of Mexico
With respect to certification, we have advised the
Secretary of State, who will make a recommendation to the
President, and that determination should come from the White
House. But we have built on efforts to identify Mexican drug
organizations. The Government of Mexico has substantially
increased extradition over these past 2 years. I never dreamed
3 years ago that I would be seeing extradition at the rate that
we are seeing it and there is a cooperative working
relationship in a number of areas that I think will be a solid
foundation upon which to continue to build.
Senator Gregg. I have lots of other questions, but I want
to give my colleagues a chance to go first and then we will
come back. But on this Mexico issue, are the Mexicans
cooperating with DEA?
Ms. Reno. The last report that I have had is that there is
an excellent working relationship with respect to units that
have been developed and identified as special units, that there
is a good exchange of information, and that the cooperation is
building.
Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased that the Attorney General understands the
one very, very important factor, that drugs are like water.
They take the path of least resistance.
additional DEA agents
Last year, you talked a little bit about the significant
increase of money we put in, Mr. Chairman, last year, and I
wanted to know a couple of specific things. Madam Attorney
General, how many additional DEA agents did that provide for? I
heard the number 1,000 floating around somewhere. Could that be
the right number? Are they on line if that was the number we
increased the money for?
Ms. Reno. On board at the end of the year of 1997 was
4,003. The 1998 authorized was 4,238, and I will provide you
with information as to whether they----
Senator Campbell. So that additional 235 or so are agents
that have come on line in the last year?
Ms. Reno. These were authorized for 1998, and what I have
got to do is give you the latest information on the hiring.
This was for 1998, so I have got to tell you whether they have
all been hired yet or not, and I will provide you with that
information.
[The information follows:]
Special Agent Hiring
DEA was authorized an additional 245 additional Special
Agents in its fiscal year 1998 appropriation. To date, 150 of
these agents have been brought on-board. By the close of fiscal
year 1998, DEA will hire the remaining 95 Special Agents,
thereby meeting its total authorized staffing level for the
year of 4,238 Special Agents.
Senator Campbell. I would appreciate that.
The location of where they are assigned, is that
predominately a function of the DEA or do you also have some
input into that from Justice?
Ms. Reno. Well, let me see if I can give you the precise
breakdown.
Methamphetamine use
Senator Campbell. While you are looking for that, just let
me tell you why I am asking that question. The largest town in
the western part of our State is Grand Junction, CO, not large
in terms of how big these eastern cities are, but it is
probably 80,000 people in Grand Junction. Just recently, the
chief of police in that town, Chief Gary Consat, he stated that
in that valley, that they are literally in jeopardy from
methamphetamines. As I mentioned earlier, these are labs that
are easily moved, small labs, and as we reduce the use of drugs
in other areas, it seems like the use of the methamphetamines
are going up.
I was concerned. They have two almost out of control
problems in that part of the State. One is illegal aliens. In
fact, sometimes the local police turn them loose, if you can
imagine that, because they cannot get a quick response from
Federal agents. We have tried to do what we can to improve
that. But I am also concerned that the DEA agents, that we have
an increase of DEA agents in western Colorado to help these
local chiefs of police. If you could, I would like you to give
me some information about your Department's plans, if you are
involved in the moving of the DEA agents to these areas of
rising methamphetamine use.
Ms. Reno. Some of the requests are site-specific. For
example, DEA in the 1999 request provides for 38 agents in the
Caribbean, and there is a Caribbean initiative. But it also
provides for agents specifically designated for the
implementation of our methamphetamine strategy. For example,
the projected methamphetamine special agent assignment for
Denver is six agents for 1999.
Senator Campbell. Six?
Ms. Reno. Yes.
Senator Campbell. Do the requests come through the DEA or
are they made from local police departments to increase DEA
agents?
Ms. Reno. There are two initiatives. One, DEA plans based
on the intelligence, based on the problems that it perceives.
We started some over 2 years ago as we sensed the problems
emerging with respect to methamphetamine, for example, and we
developed a strategy. DEA held a conference in which it asked
and invited State and local law enforcement and other Federal
agencies to participate and prepared a report and then a
strategy based on that conference and on the preparation that
had gone into the development of the strategy.
It has been active in implementing that strategy around the
country and trying to identify where, through intelligence, the
pressure points are with respect to methamphetamine, and this
deployment reflects what they are learning with respect to
methamphetamine.
Senator Campbell. I thank you. Let me move on to something
else.
Drug fighting strategy
Ms. Reno. Now, let me point out one other point, though.
One of the first steps that we took when we came into office
was to focus on violence in this country and to figure how the
Federal Government could be an appropriate partner, based on
principles of federalism, with State and local law enforcement.
Much of this violence was generated by drug organizations and
drug gangs and the problems associated with crack.
Administrator Constantine of the DEA developed the concept
of the mobile enforcement team, and oftentimes that team
responds based on a police department's or a police chief's
request. Again, we are trying to make sure that we prioritize
those based not just on who asked but on what the data shows to
indicate the greatest need, but we try to work with State and
local law enforcement in every way we can to make sure that our
resources are allocated appropriately.
In addition, we are engaged in some long-range planning,
because when I took office, I found that one district would
have a lot of U.S. attorneys or assistant U.S. attorneys but no
DEA agent, and some might have a lot of FBI agents and not
enough prosecutors. We are trying to make sure that in our
long-range planning and our allocation of resources, it is done
based on need and based on population and based on the
circumstances in that particular region, and Senator, it might
be interesting for you as we perfect this long-range planning,
data gathering system that we have, I think you and perhaps
other members of the subcommittee would be interested in this
process. We would like to share it with you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Methamphetamine-Related Special Agent Positions
Decisions on the deployment of DEA's methamphetamine
related Special Agent positions are based both on the agency's
own intelligence and internal staffing requirements, as well as
the collective input of Federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies (including DOJ) across the United States.
DEA is very concerned about the continuing spread of
methamphetamine across the United States, including to areas
throughout the West, Midwest and more recently, the Eastern
Seaboard. The agency will continue to work diligently with its
Federal, state and local counterparts to address the
methamphetamine problem to prevent it from reaching the
epidemic proportions that the crack cocaine crisis did in the
late 1980's and early 1990's.
Through the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, DEA received a
total of 60 Special Agents for its Methamphetamine Initiative.
Attached is the agency's plan for full deployment of the new
methamphetamine related Special Agent positions.
Fiscal year 1998 special agent deployment plan by division
[Methamphetamine only]
Methamphetamine
special agent
position
DEA Division assignments
Atlanta........................................................... 4
Boston..................................................................
Caribbean...............................................................
Chicago........................................................... 1
Dallas............................................................ 3
Denver............................................................ 2
Detroit........................................................... 4
El Paso.................................................................
Houston.................................................................
Los Angeles....................................................... 3
Miami...................................................................
Newark............................................................ 2
New Orleans....................................................... 4
New York.......................................................... 1
Philadelphia...................................................... 3
Phoenix........................................................... 2
San Diego......................................................... 3
San Francisco..................................................... 4
Seattle........................................................... 4
St. Louis......................................................... 8
Washington, D.C................................................... 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................... 50
=================================================================
________________________________________________
HQ Support \1\.................................................... 4
Office of Training................................................ 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 60
\1\ Domestic Ops (1); Intelligence (1); Op Support (1); Inspections (1).
In fiscal year 1999, DEA is requesting an additional 223 positions
(100 Special Agents) and $24.5 million to continue implementation of
its Methamphetamine Strategy. Agency decisions regarding the ultimate
distribution of these positions are currently being developed.
Juvenile drug courts
Senator Campbell. Thank you. Do I still have a little time,
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Gregg. Yes; we are allowing about 10 minutes for
the first round.
Senator Campbell. I recently had an opportunity to spend
some time with General McCaffrey in the Denver drug court, and
I tell you, I was very impressed with it, and I think they are
doing a fine job. I wanted to also get your reaction.
Some of the judges in our State are considering
establishing a juvenile drug court with the rise in juvenile
drug use, which I think that would be a natural thing to
consider. Does the Department of Justice have any intention to
try to foster the spread of these juvenile drug courts?
Ms. Reno. I want to do everything I can because I have some
passing knowledge of it, since the first drug court was
established in Miami, FL, by the prosecutor there and the court
and the public defender. I never dreamed that it would be as
successful as it has been and that we would be getting
objective comments, bipartisan comments from around the country
about the success of the drug court.
I think it has important resources and processes that can
be brought to bear in the juvenile system, but Senator, the one
thing I warn is the court will not make any difference, just
the existence of the drug court, unless we make sure that the
treatment components and the processes used to try to address
the problem that caused the drug abuse in the first place are
properly funded, and we will continue to work with everybody
concerned, and I will provide you with as specific information
as I can as to specific plans on juvenile drug courts.
Senator Campbell. I would appreciate it if you would do
that.
[The information follows:]
Juvenile Drug Courts
The populations and caseloads of most juvenile courts in
the country have changed dramatically during the past decade.
The nature of both the delinquent acts and the dependency
matters being handled has become far more complex, entailing
more serious and violent criminal activity and escalating
degrees of substance abuse. During the past three years, an
increasing number of jurisdictions have looked to the
experiences of adult drug courts to determine how these might
be adapted by juvenile courts to more effectively deal with the
increasing number of substance abusing juvenile offenders.
As of February 1, 1998, there were 31 operational juvenile
and family drug courts and 43 jurisdictions were in the
planning process. The interest in juvenile drug courts has
risen dramatically in the last year. In order to facilitate the
development of juvenile drug courts and to meet the training
and technical assistance needs of these courts, the Office of
Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO), is
coordinating with the State Justice Institute (SJI), the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
DCPO has funded $7.7 million in juvenile drug court
activity between fiscal years 1995-1997. This includes 23
planning grants, 14 implementation grants, and 7 enhancement
grants for juvenile drug court activity. DCPO anticipates an
increase in the number of applications and awards in 1998.
The DCPO and SJI sponsored a 2-day focus group on juvenile
drug courts in August 1997. As identified by the focus group,
the development of juvenile drug courts presents unique
challenges not encountered in the adult drug court environment.
Among these are: Addressing the needs of the family, especially
families with substance abuse problems; counteracting the
negative influences of peers, gangs, and family members; and
motivating juvenile offenders to alter their behavior.
The development of juvenile drug courts has, therefore,
required special strategies to address these issues. The
following are characteristics common to these special
strategies: Much earlier and more comprehensive intake
assessments; much greater focus on the functioning of the
juvenile's family, as well as the juvenile throughout the
juvenile court process; much greater coordination between the
court, the treatment community, the school system, and other
community agencies in responding to the needs of the juvenile
and the court; much more active and continuous judicial
supervision of the juvenile's case and treatment process; and
attention to the stages of adolescent development in designing
appropriate substances abuse treatment services.
Currently, DCPO is jointly funding a project with SJI to
develop a guidebook for jurisdictions interested in
implementing a juvenile drug court. The Institute for Families
in Society, University of South Carolina was awarded the
project which is scheduled to be completed by December 1998.
The guidebook is based on practitioner experience and will
provide both practical information on how to develop a juvenile
drug court, as well as information on the philosophy of
juvenile drug courts. OJJDP has expressed interest in working
with DCPO and SJI to use the guidebook to develop curricula for
jurisdictions.
In 1998, DCPO will use, with Congressional approval,
$400,000 to provide training and technical assistance
specifically for juvenile drug courts. DCPO is planning to
collaborate with OJJDP to develop a broad-based training and
technical assistance capability for jurisdictions interested in
planning, implementing, or enhancing a juvenile drug court.
Also in 1998, DCPO will fund, through NIJ, the second phase
of the National Drug Court Evaluation Program. The 14 drug
courts that received implementation grants in 1995 and 1996
will be evaluated, two of which are juvenile drug courts. The
first component of this evaluation will set up the capacity for
conducting subsequent evaluations of the impact of the courts.
The impact evaluations will be conducted as the second
component. This evaluation effort will begin to answer some of
the ``why they work'' questions about drug courts.
Finally, through DCPO funding, the American University
operates the Drug Court Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse has
been able to provide comprehensive and current information
about drug court activities, both adult and juvenile. This
function has provided a critical ``mouthpiece'' for drug court
``best practices.'' As an example, the Clearinghouse surveys
juvenile drug courts to identify operational characteristics
and measures for program impact. The following are retention
rates (total number of graduates and active participants
compared to total participants entering the program) for
juvenile drug courts as of May 1997.
[In percent]
Jurisdiction Retention Rate
Visalia, CA....................................................... 87
Pensacola, FL..................................................... 90
Tampa, FL......................................................... 95
Key West, FL...................................................... 95
Reno, NV.......................................................... 75
Salt Lake City, UT................................................ 90
Indian country initiative
Senator Campbell. Let me go to the $10 million tribal
courts initiative now, if you could explain how that is going
to be administered, and also the request for the $52 million
for tribal detention facilities. Could you tell us how those
grants would be disbursed?
Ms. Reno. Let me just give you an overview of it first. My
mother was an honorary princess of the Miccosukee Nation
because she had written some stories that helped get resources
and supplies when there was an epidemic of illness that caused
serious problems throughout the community. I came to Washington
with a real sense of the Miccosukees but not what was happening
in the rest of the Nation, and I was really surprised and
shocked at how we had failed to address our law enforcement
responsibilities throughout the country in Indian country.
But my Miccosukee friends had taught me that you should
listen first, and so I held a listening conference in
Albuquerque in which we listened for 2 days. We have had two
other meetings, one in South Dakota and one at Harvard Law
School, of all places, for Northeast tribes, and they have been
extremely beneficial. But the theme that runs throughout is
that we have significant problems in terms of, as you point
out, gangs from outside the tribal community coming in, but as
importantly, the problems of youth violence, drugs, alcohol
abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse, and that this has
got to be addressed in a comprehensive way, so we are involved
in that.
In addition to funding, the way it would work, we would try
to fund with additional FBI agents, uniformed police, and
tribal investigators for the law enforcement initiatives that
would be critical, and then with respect to the detention
funding, I can get you the specifics, but what we are concerned
about there is so often when a person has to be detained,
particularly young people, they are taken some considerable
distance away from the tribal scene in a world that has no
connection to the world that they came from, and then they are
returned without appropriate backup and followthrough and
after-care.
What we are trying to design within the Department, and we
would be happy to brief you on the progress that we have made,
is how can we develop detention facilities that are
geographically situated so that they can benefit most of the
tribes involved? How can we make sure that with respect to
juveniles, appropriate services, such as schooling and other
services, are provided, and what can we do?
Now, how this is administered, I will get you those
specifics. But the important thing will be, how do we site
those centers, because the whole geography is spread out so
far. I would be grateful for your thoughts as we proceed with
this effort.
[The information follows:]
Detention Facilities--Geographical Locations
The Office of Justice Programs Corrections Program Office
(CPO) is currently looking at two ways to develop detention
facilities that are geographically situated to benefit most
tribes. First, CPO, with the National Institute of Justice's
crime mapping technology and assistance, is mapping out all 71
adult/juvenile facilities in Indian Country and plotting a 50
mile circumference from the facility to determine the distances
between the law enforcement feeder agencies on tribal lands and
the jails or detention facilities on tribal lands. CPO is
surveying the field to identify the existing capacity of all
facilities. These variables will be used to target the
placement of new facilities and or renovation of existing
jails/detention facilities to ensure the most appropriate
geographic locations are integrated with the need for increased
capacity in making funding decisions.
Secondly, CPO is trying to make sure that each jail/
detention facility has a comprehensive array of programing for
adult and juvenile offenders. These services would address the
social, educational, vocational, and cognitive issues related
to substance abuse and criminality for juveniles and adults who
are incarcerated or detained in OJP funded facilities. CPO is
also attempting to not simply lock up offenders but to keep
them from offending again by getting to the root of their
criminality.
Senator Campbell. I appreciate your recognition that it is
comprehensive. As an example, we have a very, very high rate of
fetal alcoholism, as you know, fetal alcohol syndrome, it is
called. They say at Pine Ridge, about one out of four babies
being born is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, and that, of
course, is totally preventable. But once the mother drinks and
the baby is born with that, it is there for life. I know that
some of the increased violent behavior comes from youngsters
that have that, and so simply to put more money into more forms
of incarceration and bigger jails and so on does not really
deal with the problem with the Indians, as you know.
Medicare fraud
Let me maybe just ask one more, since my time has about run
out, or maybe perhaps just make a statement to you. I know we
have a great deal of Medicare fraud, and I noted with interest
in the staff briefing I got that almost every hospital in
Colorado, most of them serving low-income patients from
predominately rural areas, have gotten some pretty, what they
call strong-arm tactics from the Justice Department in pursuing
Medicare fraud. Many of them do not have the capabilities of
hiring full-time people to keep all their Federal paperwork in
order as the big hospitals do, and I know a number of them have
called us.
This is not an appropriations matter, I understand that,
but I would ask that you look at some of those issues
internally about how the process is done, how the Department
handles this Medicare fraud as it deals with the small rural
hospitals.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank you for
your time.
Ms. Reno. Senator, I have done just that, and about 2 weeks
ago, I addressed the national convention of the American
Hospital Association, knowing of their concern. From all of our
review to date, and we have reviewed it carefully, I do not
believe we are using the False Claims Act to punish what are
honest billing mistakes. The act requires evidence that the
person involved acted knowingly or with reckless disregard or
deliberate indifference, and I think that is an appropriate
standard.
But what I told the hospital association was, we do not
want to be in the business of punishing honest mistakes. We do
want to focus on those mistakes that are reckless or deliberate
or indicate deliberate indifference to the law. I told them
that we would have processes in the Justice Department that if
they feel that there is an inappropriate application of the
False Claims Act, that we will work with them, that we will
make sure that there are avenues that their concerns can be
addressed, and I have had some good feedback from my talk and
intend to follow through on it and make sure that we have an
open line of communication, and if anyone has a specific
example, we will follow through immediately.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Madam Attorney General. I
appreciate your time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Campbell. Obviously, we
look to you for leadership as chairman of the Indian Affairs
Committee for this additional funding on the Indian court
system.
Senator Hutchison.
Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Gregg.
I want to note in your testimony the emphasis that you are
placing on the INS and Border Patrol, and you mentioned the
leadership of this committee as being one of the helpers to you
to do that. I want to say that the leadership of this
committee, Senator Gregg, really has made this a priority and I
appreciate it very much, because, of course, my State is one of
those that is suffering the most, and Senator Gregg sent the
clerk down there and he spent a lot of time with the Border
Patrol agents and the INS officials, and it has really helped.
I want to reiterate what you said and thank Senator Gregg for
recognizing this priority.
Ms. Reno. May I make a point?
Senator Hutchison. Yes, please.
Ms. Reno. I know how interested he has been in what he has
done, but I also know the meetings I have been to with you. I
think you had something to do with it, as well.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you.
Senator Gregg. Just a slight bit.
Senator Hutchison. I thank you for that.
Let me say that I understand what you have just said about
once you crack down in one place, then it goes to another
place, because when cockroach corner was cleaned up, through
probably your good offices, it did start coming through Texas
and we saw it immediately.
Senator Campbell. What is cockroach corner?
Senator Hutchison. That was the Miami Airport. That is
where all the drugs came in. Is that new for you?
Ms. Reno. I never heard that before. [Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Oh, my goodness.
Senator Gregg. Neither have I.
Senator Hutchison. Well, in the world of trivia, you now
know what everyone else was saying about Miami Airport.
Senator Gregg. The Attorney General stands firm.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Reno. What we called ourselves was the Wild West.
[Laughter.]
Senator Campbell. That is where I am from.
Senator Hutchison. It is all a matter of where you are
looking at the ball. So it was felt in Texas, and, of course,
as you know, Madam Attorney General, with 1,200 miles of
border, there are many opportunities for undetected and
unrestricted crime elements and the criminals have figured it
out.
One of the things that we have started on, and I am very
pleased that it is in your budget this year, is the 1,000 new
Border Patrol agents. Do you think that our goal of 5,000 new
Border Patrol agents by the year 2002, for which we are now on
track, is going to be enough as you see the hot spots popping
up in other places?
Ms. Reno. I think we are going to have to judge as we make
progress year to year, because what we are also doing, and
General McCaffrey has been a leader in this area, is making
sure that we work with the Department of Defense to have the
latest technology that will enable us to multiply our force all
along the border.
It is my hope that with the expanding technology, we will
be able to focus sensitive equipment at the ports of entry and
at the checkpoints and facilitate the usage of personnel there.
But at the same time, between the ports of entry, develop a
system of sensors, of scopes, and of automated geographical
tracking, if you will, so that we will have a system down that
entire border that will enable us to know where the hot spots
are so that we can move immediately and in a mobile way to
address those issues.
If we can make our people along the border as efficient as
possible with the use of the latest technology in a
comprehensive way up and down the entire border, then it might
not--the number that has been authorized may be appropriate.
But I look forward to working with you to see how we fare and
what will need to be done in subsequent years.
Senator Hutchison. I think that the technology that we are
seeing, the infrared and the radar systems do greatly increase
the amount that a Border Patrol station can see, but
practically speaking, if you see the shadows going across the
border 15 miles out, the actual apprehension is still
difficult. So I know that we are a ways away from the 2002, but
I certainly hope that you will continue to look at the number
of Border Patrol agents, for whom I think nothing can be
substituted.
Let me just give you one example of a success that you can
take credit for, and I could not be happier than to give you
credit, and that is Operation Rio Grande, which came about
after the hearing that we had in this subcommittee last year to
take the 60 Border Patrol agents and redeploy them practically
immediately down to the McAllen-Brownsville sector. This was
done in August, as you know.
Since October 1, this is the latest report. They have now
seized 117,000 pounds of marijuana, 264 pounds of cocaine just
in the McAllen sector, which have a value of $102 million and
reflect a 24-percent increase in drug-related apprehensions
from last year. So the Border Patrol agents, along with the
enhancers that you have mentioned, show a real difference just
in 6 months since you instituted that program.
Ms. Reno. Let me point out to you, though, if you had said,
OK, 5,000 more Border Patrol, or let us say you had been on the
path to giving us 1,000 more DEA agents in south Florida in
1980 and then they had worked so well that they shifted the
patterns to other parts of the country, you would not want
extra agents sitting there. That is the reason I think it is
going to be very important for us to work together and see just
what is happening, see how patterns change, see if they
maintain the same features, work together in the most
constructive way we can to understand that it is a shifting
problem and to be prepared to respond together in the most
effective way possible to that shifting problem.
Senator Hutchison. I absolutely understand what you are
saying, and it makes sense, and I think we will have to monitor
it because 1,200 miles of border is a sieve. It is very
difficult to get control of it. It is different from some of
the other problems that are faced with water entry or small
segments of border. I appreciate that you are working with us
and will continue to want to work with you.
Mexico
Let me ask you another question before I go to a different
subject, and that is, is there anything else that from your
vantage point at the Department of Justice you would ask us to
do with our relations with Mexico and our request to Mexico
that would help fight the drug trafficking across our border?
Ms. Reno. I would just like to make sure that people and
Congress are aware of some of the steps that have been taken,
because as I indicated earlier in my previous remarks, we had
had trouble getting people extradited from Mexico. But in 1997
alone, Mexico extradited 30 fugitives to the United States and
deported 10 more in lieu of extradition. In 1998, it has
extradited one fugitive and there is now a good working
relationship between the two nations. I have had the chance
recently to meet with the new foreign minister and she has
expressed continued support for a thoughtful give and take.
One of the points that I would like to see stressed,
though, is that with respect to extradition, I think some of
the opposition to extraditing nationals came because of
sovereignty concerns. We are now in a world where we are trying
to build trust around the world, and every good prosecutor
knows that a crime should be prosecuted generally in the place
that it was committed. I would like to see us work together to
do everything we can, not just with respect to the southern
frontier but around the world, to let the criminals know that
there is no safe haven and that people will be brought to
justice in the best forum for determining guilt or innocence. I
think that is a message that is loud and clear, and I think
Mexico has taken great steps to honor that concept.
Senator Hutchison. That is what I was going to ask you. Is
there anything more that we should emphasize on that, or do you
think it is coming along?
Ms. Reno. I think it is coming along. Sometimes it is not
as fast as I would like to see, but Attorney General Madrazo
has been a pleasure to work with. I think he is trying his
best. I am impressed with what he is doing and the approaches
that he has taken. We have an excellent working relationship
in, for example, San Diego that we are wanting to make sure we
submit up and down the entire border. We have much, much to do,
but I think we are making progress.
High-intensity drug trafficking areas [HIDTA]
Senator Hutchison. One of the things that General McCaffrey
has put in place but does not have enough funding to fully
implement is high-intensity drug trafficking areas, where there
is a coordination between Federal law enforcement agencies and
the local law enforcement agencies, and it has been very
successful and helpful in these high-intensity areas. You have,
as a priority, some of that coordination and I just would ask
you if you would work with General McCaffrey. I am not asking
you to specifically take money and put it in, but it just seems
that in these particularly high-intensity drug areas, perhaps
your efforts to coordinate and his could be augmented to target
some of these worse areas for drug trafficking.
Ms. Reno. Let me make a suggestion. Why do not you all and
General McCaffrey and the Department of Justice and myself talk
a little bit more about this, because we have worked together
very effectively to ensure a Federal, State, and local
partnership, a two-way street so that we give information to
the State and local officials and they, in turn, support us,
that the case be prosecuted where it is in the best interest of
the community.
But one of the things that we are finding is that Congress
will appropriate moneys for a HIDTA and make it HIDTA specific,
however, perhaps we could plan it better together and make sure
that the moneys are spent as wisely as possible, and we would
commit any effort possible to that end. I think we could do
some really interesting things because you have got a HIDTA for
a particular city and then there are other areas where you have
a HIDTA for a region, and the more we can plan together, the
more that Justice and Treasury and State and local officials
can come together and plan comprehensively by region, the
better.
That does not, however, ignore the fact that we must plan
nationwide, because so much of this just crosses regions, goes
from one place to another in the country, comes from across the
Southwest border to Chicago or to New York, and the need for
national planning is critical, as well.
Senator Hutchison. I believe that what you are saying is
absolutely accurate. I believe that perhaps the lack of
coordination, and maybe we can do something to put that
together, has caused some money to go into areas that are not
really as intense in need, and perhaps with your overall
responsibility in this area and General McCaffrey's more
focused responsibility, talking might be able to help in both
areas. So I will work with that, as well.
domestic Terrorism
There is one last question, a different subject, and that
is, with the situation in Iraq, I think the need to plan for
domestic terrorism has been heightened, not that the need was
any greater but that certainly we are going to see tensions
rising.
You started and had the task to develop a national plan for
domestic terrorism and you have started designating areas for
that project to be implemented. Would you tell me where you are
in the planning and what kinds of programs you might see coming
forward in the eventuality that we need to be on a more highly
alert status in this country?
Ms. Reno. I do not want to go into the details, but I can
assure you that Director Freeh has been very sensitive to this
issue in these weeks that have led up to the situation in Iraq
and has taken, I think, appropriate precautions and has briefed
me.
But in terms of the long-range strategy, we are going to be
meeting on this issue on March 31. But we have at the Justice
Department, pursuant to the provision in the appropriations
bill, prepared what I call a protocol with a timeline as to how
we will get a strategy to you that is developed Government-
wide, that has the input of all concerned, and that addresses
the issue. We have provided Senator Gregg with a copy so that
he could review it and see if there were any issues that we had
omitted and that will be a continuing effort and we will try to
brief and involve the committee.
Senator Gregg. We will make sure that you get a copy of
that, and that everybody else on the committee will get a copy
of that.
Senator Hutchison. Are you at the funding level where you
are comfortable that we can address those concerns?
Senator Gregg. There is no shortage of money.
Senator Hutchison. Very good.
Senator Gregg. On that issue.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much for working with us
on these major issues and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. On that specific issue, we are
going to hold a hearing on March 31 to review the status of the
counterterrorism effort which was started by this committee
about 1\1/2\ years ago, and this committee has made it clear on
a number of occasions in a very bipartisan way that we will
commit whatever resources are necessary to assist the attorneys
general and the other agencies within the Government that are
under our jurisdiction to assure that we have an adequate
response.
Senator Lautenberg.
Juvenile mentoring program
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too,
want to welcome the Attorney General, and I want to commend
her, Mr. Chairman, for making the fight against juvenile crime
and violence a top priority.
To echo what you have said, because good news deserves
repeating, for the second year in a row, juvenile crimes have
fallen and it is exciting news and a source of pride to the men
and women who interact daily with young people in the United
States. I appreciate the efforts of the teachers, police
officers, and volunteers who have worked hard to bring these
juvenile crime rates down in our communities. There is still so
much to do.
I authored the juvenile mentoring program, called JUMP, and
want to emphasize today that the crime problem cannot be solved
by investing in punishment alone. There has also got to be a
significant investment in prevention. The Census Bureau
recently reported that one-half of America's 16 and 17 year
olds are at-risk children, one-half. That is 3.7 million kids.
Other estimates run, for the whole adolescent age range, as
high as 15 million children being at risk. That means these
youths are more likely to drop out of school, less likely to
find work, and, unfortunately, more likely to begin a life that
leads to drugs and to crime.
General Reno, you cited juvenile mentoring as a proven way
to reach out to these kids and to provide them with role models
who can help turn their lives around. The JUMP Program has
proven successful in matching up at-risk youth with mentors and
keeping kids off the street. Therefore, I have to ask you why
it is that your budget proposes to put this successful program
into a block grant. Now, I know that we share the same goal of
providing hope to our young people, but I am worried that some
of these funds will not be invested in mentoring programs and
the kids will once again fall back to a process that is not, as
we have proven in the recent years, as successful as the
mentoring program has been.
We started JUMP in 1992, it was authorized, and the initial
funding was $4 million in 1994. This year, in fiscal year 1998,
we have $12 million in the program. This is not a time when
programs grow of their own status but rather because they have
to show some signs of success, and I think we have done that
with the juvenile mentoring partnership.
Therefore, General Reno, I ask you what it is that induced
the program to be subsumed into the administration programs
and, therefore, again, raise the specter that I am concerned
about.
Ms. Reno. What we have seen, and first of all, the JUMP
Program has been a marvelous program. I think it has been
evaluated, it has worked, and it can make a difference. But in
too many instances, you will see a mentoring program authorized
and that will be the only program available, whereas if the
community had a chance to design a program that went beyond
just the JUMP Program, just a mentoring program, where somebody
saw the child on, say, a weekly basis and was able to look at
the community's response as a whole, we think it can be more
effective.
We will still have a discretionary pot of money that would
and could include mentoring, but more importantly, what we are
saying is, let communities who know their needs and resources
design the program. In some instances, it may be a mentoring
program. But rather than just say you have to select this one,
let communities work with us to devise the best way possible
for ensuring that there are adults who can supervise and hold
young people accountable.
Senator Lautenberg. I think there is a tendency in the
country, though I think waning, that says, punish them--harder
punishment, longer terms in prison, try kids as adults, all of
those things. And what I fear, General Reno, is that mentoring
is not something that you can measure as quickly as you would
like.
So, therefore, I can see those funds being used as, well,
we build a juvenile detention center or we will build a part of
our police force designed to catch them, lock them up, and get
them off the streets. We know, again, and I think you say that
in your own remarks, that punishment alone is not enough to do
the job. So I am fearful that these funds will not be used in a
program that takes a little longer time for its effectiveness
to show and that is the reason I raise this with you.
Ms. Reno. We will make sure, because I certainly do not
think that there is any intent, and I will look at the language
again of the proposal, to take it out of community initiatives
that prevent juvenile delinquency and put it into something
that involves enforcement or corrections, but I will address
that.
What I am concerned about and where I think we can be more
effective, is if you have a mentoring program that is the only
thing that exists and that person, the mentor, is not able to
see the young person five nights a week and they are left alone
and unsupervised, there is so much that we can do if a
community can design a program that will keep kids out of
trouble.
I will go back and look at this, but this particular
program proposal is designed to keep kids out of trouble, not
to deal with them when they get into trouble. We will work with
you on that, because the JUMP Program has been excellent and it
in no sense is an effort to undermine that.
Senator Lautenberg. We will watch with interest, Madam
Attorney General. If you could see that, in the process of
review, that I am kept up to date in terms of what you find,
and you are not going to be able to know for several months
going into the thing, but I would appreciate hearing from you
on that.
[The information follows:]
Juvenile Mentoring Program [JUMP]
It is OJJDP's belief that communities and at-risk youth are
best served when communities are empowered to determine what
prevention programs provide the best opportunity to establish a
continuum of prevention services. OJJDP currently administers
the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and has funded 93
projects since 1994. However, while JUMP has proven to be an
effective program, OJJDP strongly supports the notion that it
is more appropriate to provide funds to local units of
government to implement those prevention-related programs
targeted to the specific needs of the community, than to
administer a particular type of prevention program.
For example, OJJDP's Title V Community Prevention Grants
program, which has been appropriated $20 million in each fiscal
year 1995-1998, funds nearly 500 local delinquency prevention
grant programs across the nation. Under this program, community
boards analyze risk factors for the children in their
community, survey resources, and put into place an array of
prevention programs--including mentoring programs--that target
the specific needs of the community.
Mentoring programs are also funded under OJJDP's Title II,
Part B, Formula Grants program. Like Title V, this program
provides funding for prevention programs, while also supporting
delinquency control and system improvement initiatives.
Experience shows that significant resources from this program
are being invested in mentoring at the state and local levels.
State reports show that 1995 funds have supported 260 subgrants
with a mentoring component, and to date, 1996 funds have
supported 162 subgrants with a mentoring component.
Northeast cargo theft task force
Last year we directed the Justice Department to establish a
Northeast cargo theft task force and to provide it with $2
million. Can you tell me what is the status of this task force
that we were trying to establish?
Ms. Reno. I do not have the information with me. I will
check and furnish that to you immediately, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. All right, because my State, New York,
and Florida are among the hardest-hit areas with respect to
this crime and we would like to curb it, if we can. There is
enormous cost resulting from this crime.
Ms. Reno. You are talking about cargo theft?
Senator Lautenberg. Yes.
Ms. Reno. I cannot give you the benefit of the specific
moneys and what has been done, but let me tell you what we have
tried to do. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Miami, and
Houston have been the five big areas. We have been working with
Customs and Customs has done some marvelous things in terms of
technology that is beginning to address the issue. The FBI,
working with the U.S. attorney in at least those five areas,
has focused on this. This has been a major concern. But I will,
with respect to the grant, give you the specifics on that. I do
not have that with me.
[The information follows:]
FBI Cargo Theft Task Force
General.--During the past five years, cargo theft has increasingly
become a significant concern for law enforcement, particularly the FBI.
This concern has largely developed as the nature and extent of cargo
theft has changed. Specifically, cargo theft is increasingly being
committed by organized groups and ``crews'' which steal for black
market fencing operations. These groups have become increasingly brazen
in their thefts. Violence involving armed truck hijackings and
robberies of businesses and warehouses is increasingly becoming a
factor in these heists. Widespread cargo theft has also given rise to
concomitant offenses such as robbery, kidnaping, homicide, interstate
transportation of stolen motor vehicles, drug trafficking, money
laundering and insurance fraud. Extensive and systematic criminality
indicates that sophisticated organized criminal groups are behind a
significant amount of cargo theft activity.
These thefts and robberies have increased in key port areas in the
United States. Specifically the Ports of Newark/New York, Miami and
Long Beach/Los Angeles have been most affected by this increase in
cargo theft. Additional cities that have seen an increase in cargo
theft include San Jose and San Francisco (due to high technology
production in the Silicon Valley), Memphis (due to its geographic
location as a major transshipment point for the Mid-South) and Chicago
(a major transportation link in the Midwest). Many other areas of the
country are also seriously impacted including the United States border
with Mexico. Further compounding this problem is the expansion of
professional theft and fencing groups which have been traditionally
based in major urban areas have branched out to other smaller cities
and rural areas where law enforcement efforts are less organized and
industry security prevention efforts are minimal.
As a result of this increase in cargo related crime, the FBI
initiated the Cargo Theft Initiative in 1996. During 1996 and 1997, the
FBI worked closely with industry and other law enforcement agencies to
determine the nature and extent of the crime problem and determine what
course of action to take to reduce the cargo theft problem. Numerous
multi agency, FBI led task forces have been formed throughout the
United States to address interstate theft crime.
After analyzing the scope and extent of the cargo theft problem,
the FBI developed a national strategy and plan which will likely have a
dramatic impact on this crime problem. In fiscal year 1998, the FBI
began implementing this national strategy. The strategy focuses on
disrupting and dismantling the criminal organizations and professional
theft groups responsible for creating the increase in this crime. This
strategy seeks to maximize both State and Federal prosecution to
eliminate this crime problem from the street level to the highest level
of the criminal hierarchy.
The combined harbors of Newark/New York is the East Coast's busiest
harbor. In 1994, this combined harbor took in $58.7 billion worth of
goods according to United States Customs estimates. This was an 11.8
percent increase from 1993. The New Jersey terminals were the harbor's
primary port of call, accounting for 82 percent of all arrivals. The
only active piers in New York are the Passenger Ship Terminal and the
Red Hook Marine Terminal in Brooklyn. The Port of New York and New
Jersey handled seven percent of the nation's cargo and about 40 percent
among its competitors in the North Atlantic. While Northern Europe
remains the port's biggest trading partner, countries in Southeast Asia
and South America provided major surges in cargo.
The Newark, New Jersey area has been characterized as having the
most active trucking, rail and container/freight handling operations in
the United States. The illicit trade of stolen property which occurs
there and across the river in New York City involves a multitude of
thieves, fences, and organized crime members. The losses in these ports
are significant but for the most part have remained steady during the
past five years. The estimated losses in the Newark/New York
metropolitan area associated with cargo theft and other interstate
theft violations are $1.8 billion annually.
To address the cargo theft problem in the New York/Newark
metropolitan area, the FBI has specialized squads and task forces which
address this crime problem. These squads and task forces are summarized
as follows:
Newark Field Office, Interstate Theft Task Force, Squad C-2
The FBI's Newark field office has a dedicated criminal squad
consisting of seven Agents which are specifically tasked with
investigating interstate theft matters. The bulk of these
investigations consist of cargo theft crimes.
On March 6, 1995, the FBI formed the Interstate Theft Task Force
with local and State law enforcement agencies in New Jersey. Currently,
this task force consists of Agents and detectives from the FBI, the New
York/New Jersey Port Authority, and the Bergen County Sheriff's Office.
This task force proactively investigates cargo thefts in New Jersey
through sophisticated, long-term undercover operations. This is an FBI
Safe Streets Task Force.
``Operation Norlock''.--The Interstate Theft Task Force in Newark
conducted a long-term undercover operation (UCO) which targeted
professional South American Theft crews involved in cargo theft in the
Eastern United States. This UCO has resulted in the following
statistical accomplishments:
Criminal Complaints..................................... 11
Indictments............................................. 59
Arrests................................................. 57
Convictions............................................. 40
Restitution............................................. $1,000
Recoveries.............................................. $38,429,656
Fines................................................... $17,875
Additional investigative efforts of the Interstate Theft Task Force
in Newark during fiscal year 1997 and through the first quarter of
fiscal year 1998 are summarized as follows:
Criminal Complaints..................................... 7
Criminal Informations................................... 3
Indictments............................................. 4
Arrests................................................. 25
Convictions............................................. 60
Restitution............................................. $92,030
Recoveries.............................................. $229,340,554
Fines................................................... $86,966
New York Field Office, John F. Kennedy/La Guardia International Airport
Cargo Theft Task Force, Squad C-29
The J.F. Kennedy/La Guardia Task Force has a dedicated squad of
nine FBI Agents.
In April 1994, a multi-agency undercover operation was initiated by
the FBI, New York/New Jersey Port Authority, the New York State Police,
United States Customs Service, United States Secret Service, United
States Postal Inspectors, and the New York Police Department. This
undercover operation, codenamed ``KATNET,'' targeted cargo thieves and
fencing operations stealing from the J.F. Kennedy and La Guardia
Airport. As a result of this highly successful investigation, an ad hoc
task force was formed with the aforementioned law enforcement agencies.
This task force is scheduled to be formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding in the Summer of 1998. This will be an FBI Safe Streets
Task Force.
``Operation KATNET'' was a long-term, multi-agency undercover
operation that came to full fruition in May 1997 when search and arrest
warrants were executed on numerous targets. To date, this case resulted
in the following statistical accomplishments:
Indictments............................................. 70
Arrests................................................. 98
Convictions............................................. 70
Recoveries.............................................. $13,000,000
Fines................................................... $2,000
Additional accomplishments of the J.F. Kennedy/La Guardia
International Airport Task Force for fiscal year 1997 and the first
quarter of fiscal year 1998 are summarized as follows:
Complaints.............................................. 29
Indictment.............................................. 1
Arrests................................................. 18
Convictions............................................. 8
Restitution............................................. $948,002
Recoveries.............................................. $950,000
Fines................................................... $60,050
New York Field Office, Brooklyn-Queens Cargo Theft Task Force, Squad C-
31
The Brooklyn-Queens Task Force has a dedicated squad of 15 Agents.
The Brooklyn-Queens Resident Agency, New York Field Office has
established a multi-agency ad hoc task force which investigates cargo
theft in the metropolitan New York area. This task force consists of
Agents and detectives from the FBI, New York Police Department, the
Waterfront Commission, the Queens District Attorney's Office, and the
New York/New Jersey Port Authority. This task force investigates cargo
theft in New York utilizing sophisticated investigative techniques to
include Court authorized wire interceptions, undercover operations, and
surveillance.
``Operation Second Gear'' was an undercover operation conducted by
the Brooklyn-Queens Cargo Theft Task Force which targeted cargo thieves
and fences operating in New York and New Jersey. This UCO culminated in
mass arrests and search warrants in January 1997. This UCO resulted in
the following statistical accomplishments to date:
Indictments............................................. 40
Arrests................................................. 39
Convictions............................................. 38
Recoveries.............................................. $4,500,000
Fines................................................... $57,650
Additional accomplishments of this task force during fiscal year
1997 and through the first quarter of fiscal year 1998 are as follows:
Complaints.............................................. 4
Indictments............................................. 48
Arrests................................................. 8
Convictions............................................. 17
Restitution............................................. $20,000
Recoveries.............................................. $320,000
Fines................................................... $63,450
All three of the task forces in New Jersey and New York have
additional pending cases which will result in similar statistical
accomplishments.
The FBI estimates the costs of these task forces will exceed $3
million in 1998.
The FBI is closely monitoring the cargo theft problem in the
northeastern section of the United States to ensure that the task
forces and squads assigned to investigate these violations are
utilizing resources effectively and are conducting investigations which
are consistent with the interstate theft national strategy.
Domestic violence bill
Senator Lautenberg. You are aware, Madam Attorney General,
that I authored a domestic violence bill to keep spousal and
child abusers from being able to own a gun. It has taken some
while to structure it and put the program into place, but there
are attempts to reduce the effectiveness of the bill, to permit
exceptions to gun ownership, and so forth.
Madam Attorney General, have you heard anything that would
either encourage or discourage you about that program and
about, if you can tell us anything about where it stands?
Ms. Reno. I have not heard any recent comments on it. As
you will recall, 1 year or so ago, there were considerable
comments. I will check, see what the latest information the
Department has gained and provide that to you.
[The information follows:]
Domestic Violence Bill
The most recent amendment to the Federal Gun Control Act
prohibits the sale of a firearm to persons convicted of
misdemeanors involving domestic violence. The effective
implementation of this provision requires that information
about such disqualifying misdemeanors be immediately available
through the state criminal record system and, under the
provisions of the Brady Act, through the FBI's National Instant
Background Check System (NICS) which will become operational in
November 1998. The National Criminal History Improvement
Program (NCHIP), administered by BJS, provides funds to all
states to assist them in improving the accuracy and immediate
accessibility of criminal record data for presale background
checks. To assist states in implementing the requirements of
the Lautenberg amendment, the funding guidelines for the
program were expanded in 1997 to permit funds to be used by
states to collect and, where applicable, to ``flag'' data on
disqualifying misdemeanors. In 1997, 13 states received NCHIP
funds for purposes associated with the collection/flagging of
domestic violence related offenses, including misdemeanors
under the Lautenberg amendment. Fiscal year 1998 NCHIP funds
will also be available to States for such purposes.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the
Department of the Treasury has responsibility for implementing
this law, and I know the BATF has worked to inform law
enforcement officials, firearms dealers and the general public
of their new obligations under this law. In addition, the
Administration has taken steps to ensure the domestic violence
gun ban is fully implemented within the federal government.
The Administration has heard from individuals who feel they
are being unfairly impacted by the enactment of this
legislation, as well as from supporters of the provision who
oppose any changes to the law. Based on the Department's
experience in implementing this law, I can tell you that out of
the many thousands of DOJ employees who are authorized to carry
firearms very few have been disqualified as a result of this
statute. Less than 100 Department employees were found to be
potentially disqualified from carrying weapons by this
provision.
Independent counsel budget
Senator Lautenberg. General Reno, I know that you do not
control or manage the independent counsel budget. The process,
if you could in very short form, because we are pressed for
time here, tell us how it flows that the request for funding,
as I understand it, is indefinite and, well, realistically
permanent once the counsel's program has been approved. Do you
know how much we have spent thus far to date in the Whitewater
probe?
Ms. Reno. No; I do not, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. I thought that was administratively the
responsibility of Justice.
Ms. Reno. One of the things that I have tried to do is,
except where I have specific responsibility, not be involved in
terms of oversight.
Senator Lautenberg. The Washington Post reports it
periodically, and I assume that they would furnish you that
information.
Ms. Reno. What I would ask, because in my effort to make
sure that the counsel is independent, I try to draw lines. If
it would be OK, Mr. Chairman, I would like for Mr. Colgate to
answer that. He is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the Justice Management Division, and I think he can provide the
information right now.
Senator Gregg. I think the Senator has the right to know
the information, so please, Mr. Colgate.
Mr. Colgate. As you indicated, Senator, this is a permanent
indefinite appropriation. Essentially, we place an estimate in
the President's budget, in consultation with the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, an estimated amount for fiscal year
1999. In a sense, this is a permanent appropriation and we pay
whatever bills the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
submits to us. So whatever is submitted is paid.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is the one who
supplies the administrative support to the independent counsel
and our records for Mr. Starr through November 30, 1997, the
end of November 1997, show that we have obligated Mr. Starr
$17,789,727 against this permanent indefinite appropriation. It
is my recollection that the General Accounting Office is
charged under statute to do, I believe, two audits twice a year
on the expenditures of each of the independent counsels, and we
can provide the committee for the record the latest audit by
GAO.
Senator Lautenberg. I have inquired because in a fairly old
report in the Washington Post, as well as various other media
opportunities for this data, we have seen figures at $25
million, $35 million, and yet you just said $17 million had
been spent through November of last year, correct?
Mr. Colgate. That is correct, and within the General
Accounting Office's report, and we will get that report up to
you.
Senator Lautenberg. I'm concerned because that represents
quite a discrepancy. The figure that I cited, by the way, was
allegedly as of September of last year, and that figure was $25
million. So if you are speaking of figures representing
expenditures through November----
Mr. Colgate. What I gave you is the figure that was charged
to the permanent indefinite appropriation. We also provide to
the General Accounting Office an estimate of the nonreimbursed
Department of Justice and other agencies' expenditures. I would
believe, sir, that the press report is including what is
charged to the permanent indefinite appropriation as well as
the estimate that we provide on nonreimbursed Department of
Justice expenditures to get to the larger figure in the Post
report, and I believe that figure was pulled out of one of
these periodic GAO reports.
Senator Lautenberg. There has to be some way for the
American people and those of us in the Congress to be able to
get precise figures, and I would hate to think that the
Washington Post is the source. If you can help us develop that
information, I would like to receive it without prejudice or
without further comment. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
GAO report No. GAO/AIMD-97-164 is available on the web at
http://www.gao.gov/.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Senator Bumpers.
Senator Bumpers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up on Senator Lautenberg's question, and you
may have answered this, when you see these figures, as Senator
Lautenberg has alluded to, in the Washington Post, does that
include other Government personnel, such as FBI agents? If you
see a $30 million figure, that includes all of the other
governmental services?
Senator Gregg. Mr. Colgate, why do you not take a seat so
that you can speak into the microphone.
Mr. Colgate. Yes, Senator, it does. When you see that
figure, it includes all other governmental expenditures, either
directly charged to the permanent indefinite appropriation as
well as funding in other Department of Justice appropriations
that are not reimbursed out of this account.
Senator Bumpers. That was the only question I had on that,
because I see the figures all the time but I did not know what
it included.
Prison population
General Reno, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the
crime rate in the prison population of the country, if you have
it. We will go into this with the Bureau of Prisons when they
appear before this subcommittee in more detail, but I was just
wondering if you know what the Federal prison population was at
the end of 1997, and to follow that up, what the projections
are by the end of the year 2000?
Ms. Reno. The population by the year 2001 is estimated to
be 128,111.
Senator Bumpers. Now, what is the year?
Ms. Reno. That is 2001. In 1997, the population was
101,091.
Senator Bumpers. Does that trend track the preceding years,
to 1998, 1997? Is the trend about the same?
Ms. Reno. I am concerned about the overcrowding levels in
the BOP facilities, and in that regard, the BOP recently
revised its population projections based on current
incarceration trends that indicate systemwide overcrowding
levels will increase from 20 percent in 1998 to 25 percent in
the year 2001.
Senator Bumpers. Do you have any idea, or does somebody
with you? Can they give me, in the prison population, an ethnic
number of how many African-Americans, how many Hispanics, how
many Asians, and how many Caucasians are in the prisons?
Ms. Reno. I do not have that with me.
Senator Bumpers. You do not have that? Could you provide
that for us, please?
Ms. Reno. Yes, sir, we will.
[The information follows:]
Bureau of Prisons Prison Population Breakdown
Breakdown of the prison population in BOP facilities as of
March 5, 1998 is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Number Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black......................................... 39,073 37.7
White......................................... 31,906 30.8
Hispanic...................................... 29,302 28.3
Indian........................................ 1,534 1.5
Asian......................................... 1,749 1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Bumpers. Do you have anything to give the committee
which would tell us what effect, if any, longer prison terms
are having on the reduction of crime? The increase that you
mentioned a moment ago, the increase from 1997 to 2002 is
pretty dramatic. We see the crime rate going down. I mean, the
President makes much of that, and we are all very pleased that
that is the case, but there is something sort of strange about
the fact that the prison population is continuing to climb at a
fairly dramatic rate and yet the crime rate is going down. I
suppose that is a consistent thing.
Ms. Reno. Well, it goes back again to what Senator Gregg
and I were talking about earlier, whether if you get enough
control over a population, can you reduce the number of police.
The first point that I would like to make is, when crime
goes down, and I have watched it in my own community, there is
a tendency to relax and to say, ``We have done the job,'' and
turn attention to something else. What we have tried to do in
these 5 years as we have watched crime go down is not relax,
continue our vigilance, focus on the traffickers, focus on the
violent gangs, and do everything we can to make sure it
continues to go down. And so there has been no relaxation on
our part. If anything, it has been a renewed effort focused on
violence, focused on drug trafficking, and trying to address
these issues.
One of the points that I would make to you, I watched crime
begin to go down in Miami in 1983 and then suddenly I started
hearing about a curious phenomena. There was a substance that
was not cocaine but it really was cocaine but it was called
crack, and it was violence-inciting and began to cause
considerable problems in communities, and I saw the crime rate
start back up.
One of the things that we have done in the last several
years is focus on methamphetamine, because I did not want that
to be the second crack epidemic. We have renewed our efforts
focused on those that traffic in it, those that have the labs,
working with State and local law enforcement.
So I think it requires a constant vigilance, and I do not
think that the increase in the prison population, particularly
as you look at the cases that are being brought and the
convictions that are being obtained, these are serious
offenders who deserve the time. I think, if I had to analyze
it, it is an example of continued vigilance on the part of
State and local and Federal law enforcement.
Senator Bumpers. General Reno, my staff just handed me a
list of figures, Mr. Chairman, which I think it would not hurt
to read into the record, and I will not read all of them, but
in 1975, that was 22 years ago, there were 25,000 Federal
prisoners. As you pointed out, at the end of 1997, there were
101,000. That is, what would you call that, a 400-percent
increase in a 20-year period, roughly.
As I read over your testimony, if I read it correctly,
roughly 75 to 80 percent of the people in prison are there
because of either alcohol, drugs, or related crimes dealing
with drugs, is that a fair statement?
Ms. Reno. I do not have the figures. Those are figures for
State prisons.
Senator Bumpers. That was not Federal?
Ms. Reno. I do not think it specifically applies to
Federal. Let me clarify that for you, though. But clearly, the
percentage of people in Federal prison----
Senator Bumpers. General Reno, if I may, let me read this
paragraph that I am alluding to here.
Ms. Reno. Eighty percent, yes.
Senator Bumpers. Eighty percent of the people serving time
in Federal and State prisons, you state, were either high at
the time they committed their crimes----
Ms. Reno. It says 81 percent of State inmates, 80 percent
of Federal inmates violated drug or alcohol laws. That is
correct. I stand corrected, sir.
Senator Bumpers. That is an incredible indictment of a
society, of course, that one thing--mostly drugs--because we
had alcohol before 1975. That shows the debilitating effect
that drugs are having on this country.
Taped telephone conversation
Let me ask you another question. In 1984, a man named
Charles Wick, who was head of the U.S. Information Agency,
admitted that he had taped 87 phone conversations, or it was
either in excess of 40 or in excess of 80 conversations that he
had on the telephone with Presidents Carter and Reagan and
Cabinet members. Do you think that is a good idea, for
something like that to be legal? It was perfectly legal for him
to do that because he knew that he was being recorded, but
President Reagan and President Carter did not.
Ms. Reno. I come from a State that says that is not lawful
unless it is done for----
Senator Bumpers. The States are way ahead of us on that. A
lot of States are ruling that is illegal, but the Federal
Government never has.
Ms. Reno. I would have to look at it in the Federal
context, but it worked quite fine in Florida.
Senator Bumpers. I am glad to hear you say that. In
addition to that, I might point out that if a bill dealing with
that subject exempted all law enforcement, intelligence
gathering, employers who have to monitor employees' telephone
conversations, and so on, if all those exemptions were made,
that would make it more palatable, would it not?
Ms. Reno. Well, clearly, that is what Florida law provided
for and----
Senator Bumpers. Was that passed while you were Attorney
General there?
Ms. Reno. I was not Attorney General.
Senator Bumpers. I do not mean that, district attorney or
whatever they call them in Dade County.
Ms. Reno. I do not know. It was passed either at about the
time I became State attorney or shortly before.
Senator Bumpers. Do you remember what your position was on
it at the time it passed?
Ms. Reno. For it.
Senator Bumpers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Narrowband issue
Senator Gregg. Madam Attorney General, I have a couple of
other technical questions with regard to the narrowband issue,
under the budget that is proposed, you are talking about a
decrease in spending to meet the requirements of narrowband,
which is going to be fairly intense, and then increasing it
dramatically, I think, over almost 200 percent. I am just not
sure that I understand why we would have such a proposed
spendout, where we decrease it in 1999 but then are looking at
a 200-percent increase in 2000.
Ms. Reno. What we have tried to do in the Department is
assure that each organization develop a budget estimate based
on an implementation plan for the conversion. These estimated
costs vary year by year and we will ask for resources based on
what we need by year for the plan rather than a steady stream
of funding.
The anticipated costs vary based on the requirements for
and the number of different locations to be converted by year.
Should resources be provided on a schedule different than the
project need as stated, the organizations would be forced to
rethink their implementation strategies.
So as I understand it, and I will ask those with more
technical expertise than I on the issue of narrowbanding, you
may take one part of the country that has particular problems
and the conversion may be there and there is a rhyme or reason
to their pattern and we will try to provide any specific
information we can that would indicate why there is a variance
over the 10 years.
Senator Gregg. Well, it is a big issue, and we just have to
get ready for it from the budget standpoint. We know we are
going to have the price. What I want to know is what it is
going to cost. I want to have some sort of projections in which
we can have some confidence.
Federal and State law enforcement communities
Getting back to Senator Bumpers' question, and I should
have asked this before he left, my sense is we are just
overloading the Federal law enforcement community with Federal
laws that the States already do a pretty good job of. You
stated that States do a good job in the area of how to properly
use your phone relative to recording other conversations, and
it has been a State issue. But as a general concept, should not
the Congress be a little more sensitive to the pressure that it
is putting on the Federal law enforcement community, the
Federal judiciary, and the prosecutorial community by not
passing laws which are duplicative or basically restatements of
what the States have already done or where the States have a
fair amount of responsibility and be a little more sensitive to
the issues which are Federal as versus State?
Ms. Reno. What I have tried to do as Attorney General is to
make sure that I look at it from the perspective of what is in
the best interest of communities across America, what is in the
best interest of national security, and what is in the best
interest based on the principles of federalism. I see a large
number of laws that are passed that local law enforcement can
enforce just as well and they are on the books of local law
enforcement. But situations will arise, for example, such as
carjacking, where a matter may cross a district line or a
county line and it will be easier for the U.S. attorney to
handle the case and everyone would agree that it would be
appropriate.
I think it is important that we look at each district,
recognize their needs and resources are different, and do as we
have done with our antiviolence initiative and require that the
U.S. attorneys work with State and local prosecutors, local law
enforcement to, No. 1, define the violence problem, prioritize
it, and determine who should do what based not on credit, not
on turf, but what is in the best interest of the community.
Senator Gregg. I agree with that. My concern is that the
Congress keeps, for the purposes of making a political
statement, passing criminal acts which are traditionally the
responsibility of the States. As a result, we end up
overloading our Federal law enforcement community with issues
that the States have and can do a good job. I think we should
be sensitive to that and take advantage of our Federal
resources as an adjunct to or in addition to the State sources,
not overlap.
Ms. Reno. Could I just say something on that regard,
because I think you have just done a wonderful job. I mean, you
and I disagree, but just in terms of a thoughtful, bipartisan
approach to law enforcement, I would love to see us get out of
making political statements in terms of crime and really work
together, looking at each problem, figuring that it can be
solved if we come together and use our resources wisely, and I
think it is happening.
I think what we have been able to do, working with your
subcommittee, working with State and local law enforcement, it
is exciting. It is exciting to see communities come together
and define their crime problem and take steps to bring it down,
and if we can continue to follow your pattern and your example,
I think we could do a lot.
Senator Gregg. That is very generous of you. Thank you.
Training facilities
On immigration issues, we are going to add another 1,000
Border Patrol agents. How are the training facilities working?
I am sorry Senator Hollings is not able to make it, because I
know this is very sensitive to him. Are we going to have the
capacity to train these folks and put them in the field and
have them be experts so we do not end up with people who are
undertrained or not up to doing the job?
Ms. Reno. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I
have been to Charleston. I was down there early on, making sure
that we had the capacity as we expanded beyond the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center [FLETC], and I am committed to
making sure that I am not responsible for an agency that puts
somebody in the field, whether it be a Border Patrol or any
other agent, who is not trained and is not prepared. I think
with the facility at Charleston, we are going to continue to be
prepared, working with FLETC, continue to be prepared to make
sure that these people are properly trained.
There will inevitably be, and I do not want to backtrack
from what I have said before, when you bring in that many new
agents that fast, you have fewer people in the field with the
considerable experience necessary to be a field training
officer, but we continue to look at our assignments and make
sure that we do everything we can to have the maximum
experience possible in field training situations.
Senator Gregg. We are also going to want to get into this
issue when we have the hearing on counterterrorism relative to
first responders and how we are doing there.
Fingerprint issue
I want to touch base on where you think we stand with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. We have had this very,
very serious problem, and we just had a report which highlights
that it was even more serious than many of us had been told.
Where do we stand?
Ms. Reno. As I have shared with you before, that agency has
had significant issues that it has had to address that we
inherited that have been real problems, and we have tried to
address them through the development of a system whereby we
identify what needs to be done, develop objectives, put those
objectives on timelines, and I meet weekly with the
Commissioner to review the progress that we are making. If we
begin to slip, whether it be in hiring or in attaining specific
goals, we go back, we review it, and I think we are on target.
Senator Gregg. Where do we stand relative to the
fingerprints? I see this whole thing, not to simplify it, but
coming down to our ability to know that the person that we are
interviewing for citizenship is who they say they are and is a
legitimate person who should be a citizen. What this really
comes down to, is the capacity to electronically fingerprint
and make sure that we can verify it two or three times during
the system.
Ms. Reno. I have had some immediate experience with that.
What we are developing is a process that will be used not just
for naturalization but with respect to fingerprinting for other
benefits, as well, and applications are made available. They
can obtain applications in a convenient manner. They send in
the application completed and then they are notified to come in
to centers that are spaced convenient to the major populations
being served.
I had my fingerprints taken at just such a center the other
day and it was impressive to see how it works and what can be
done. That will immediately--as we develop the technology, we
can begin to make the immediate match and we can begin to have
a process in place that----
Senator Gregg. How far are we from being able to do the
majority of the work--70 percent of the applicants, 80, 90
percent?
Ms. Reno. I would ask Mr. Colgate.
Mr. Colgate. Senator, we are in the process, as you know,
of working with the FBI to transmit electronic fingerprints, as
the Attorney General has indicated in her experience in Miami.
We anticipate that by mid-March, we will have 70 of these new
centers open throughout the United States and we will, in a
major way, beginning April 1, begin electronically transmitting
digital prints directly to the FBI. We are running it on a
pilot basis right now. It is a fascinating technology because
not only does it facilitate the speed of the process, but it
actually makes it easier for the FBI because it actually does
an edit check at the facility before the fingerprints are
transmitted.
Senator Gregg. So somebody who is interested in the process
of becoming a citizen will have their fingerprints taken at the
beginning of the process and then even a couple times during
the process and then, clearly, before the end of the process.
Mr. Colgate. The way we have looked at this as far as our
reengineering, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have the full 10
prints, and what you are speaking to, to ensure the integrity
of the process, and we did get a good report in December as far
as addressing this issue, but in each part of the process when
the individual comes in, we are going to ask them to give us 2
prints so that we can ensure that when Steve Colgate who came
in and filed the application, and Steve Colgate who gave you
the 10 prints, when Steve Colgate comes in to take the civics
test or the English test, that it is really Steve Colgate, and
that when Steve Colgate comes in to take the interview as well
as the swearing in ceremony, we still want those 2 biometric
prints to make sure that that individual is the person who was
involved throughout this whole process.
Senator Gregg. And those prints will go through West
Virginia, right?
Mr. Colgate. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. Why not New Hampshire? [Laughter.]
I just got on the committee too late.
I look forward to the hearing on counterterrorism. As you
know, this is an issue which we have worked very hard on and
you have certainly been extraordinarily helpful. I think
progress is being made, and I think people should know about
it. We still have a long way to go, but people need to know
that there is an aggressive and comprehensive counterterrorism
effort ongoing and that is what that hearing will be about.
Additional committee questions
I thank you, Madam Attorney General. There are a couple of
additional items. Senator Stevens has some questions for you. I
think some of them may have to do with Alaska. Senator Leahy
has some questions dealing with CALEA, which we would ask for
the response to be included in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
government performance and results act
Question. How are the annual performance goals in the Department's
Performance Plan linked to the Department's mission, strategic goals,
and program activities in the budget request?
Answer. The Summary Performance Plan, which we have submitted to
you, sets forth the specific goals the Department expects to achieve in
fiscal year 1999. These annual goals are consistent with the
Department's mission and long range goals, as described in our
Strategic Plan. They are also consistent with our 1999 budget request.
The Strategic Plan provides the basic framework for our annual
planning and budgeting activities. Each goal in our Summary Performance
Plan is directly linked to one of the long-range goals in our Strategic
Plan. We have displayed the information in an easy-to-read matrix that
illustrates the relationships between long-range goals and strategies,
annual goals, and performance indicators. The matrix also identifies
which components of the Department have lead responsibility for
specific goals.
We have required our components to develop their own performance
plans and to show the relationship of their programs to the strategic
goals of the Department. These component-specific plans are included
with their budget justification materials and provide detailed
information on programs and resources.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter and what lessons did you learn?
Answer. The Department of Justice decided several years ago to
incorporate performance planning under the Results Act with our
internal budget process. We recognized that performance information is
vital to making informed decisions about allocating resources.
Therefore, we revised our budget process to require our components to
develop annual performance plans as part of their budget requests.
These individual plans link not only to the Department's overall
Strategic Plan but also to component budget requests.
We are convinced that integrating performance planning and
budgeting is the right way to go, but we recognized that there are
obstacles. While the budget and the performance plan are consistent,
they are structured very differently. The budget tends to be component
or program-specific; the performance plan, more thematic, often
incorporating multiple activities of several components under common
goals.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 1999 Summary Performance Plan
does not directly link performance goals or measures to budgetary
resources. Consistent with requirements of the Results Act, the
Department first designed and developed a five-year strategic plan that
would subsequently provide the structure for more detailed annual
performance plans. The Department's strategic plan is organized around
seven core functions that represent major functional areas of
responsibility. Performance goals and measures within the fiscal year
1999 performance plan necessarily flow from this overall framework, and
are not directly tied to, but are consistent with, the existing budget
account structure or allocation process. As a result, the Performance
Plan is more thematic, often incorporating multiple activities and
organizations.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes, each component organization within the Department has
sought to develop and provide its own annual performance plan, which
identifies the goals and indicators by which it intends to measure
progress in the upcoming fiscal year. As a result, Department
components are attempting each year to provide more complete
information on the results they have achieved and the program
objectives that they have identified for the coming year. In addition,
the Department's fiscal year 1999 Summary Plan identifies those
component organizations that have or share primary responsibility for
each goal. Therefore, information about resource levels, as well as
additional program detail, can be obtained by referencing the budget
requests of these organizations.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning differ from
the account and activity structure in your budget justification?
Answer. The difference is quite substantial. The account and
activity structure in our budget justification is presented by
appropriation, component, or major program within those components. As
noted above, the Department's performance planning is more thematic,
often incorporating multiple activities and organizations under common
goals. We believe that this approach has certain advantages, including
the opportunity to view management issues from both a budgetary and a
programmatic perspective.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. We are not certain at this time. As part of our internal
fiscal year 2000 planning process, we will ask our component
organizations whether they intend to propose any such changes. These
types of decisions entail significant revisions to existing budget and
financial management systems, and must be undertaken only after careful
deliberation within Department's components.
Question. Will you provide any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure?
Answer. Again, we are not certain at this time. Changes to existing
program activities is another consideration that will be addressed
during the Department's fiscal year 2000 internal planning process.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The performance measures that are contained in the
Department's Summary Performance Plan are based on the measures that
were developed for the Department's Strategic Plan as well as measures
that the component organizations have developed for their individual
performance plans.
How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data.
Answer. To the extent that they were able, in order to keep the
cost of data collection to a minimum, the component organizations
developed measures for which reliable and accurate data already
existed. However, in some cases, component organizations did identify
measures for which data is not currently collected. On p. 26 of our
fiscal year 1999 Summary Level Performance Plan: Data Sources, we
discuss the specific sources of the performance data. We also state
that we anticipate convening a DOJ working group to oversee our
performance data needs and capabilities. The assessment will involve
making difficult tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of
establishing new data collection systems or making major revisions to
existing ones.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. No. Although not all the data is currently tracked, the
component organizations intend to begin tracking the data in order to
be able to include it in the performance report in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. The Department's Summary Performance Plan for fiscal year
1999, Core Functions 1 through 6, contain the key strategic and
shorter-term performance goals that the subcommittee should track.
These goals were derived from the individual performance plans of the
Department's component organizations and they address the major issues
that the Department will be addressing in fiscal year 1999.
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how
well'').
Answer. By definition, our summary annual performance goals
represent the results we plan to attain in one year in an effort to
achieve our five year strategic goal. Therefore we have selected an
array of measures to indicate the results of our efforts--both output
and outcome measures. Output measures such as such as the number of
convictions, arrests, indictments and outcome measures such as the
number and qualitative assessment of cases that have lead to the
disruption, dismantlement, or collapse of identified MCE and other
major traffickers are examples of the mix of measures developed to
indicate our effort to reduce the capability of the major Colombian and
Mexican Criminal Enterprises (MCE) and other drug trafficking
organizations operating along the southwest border of the United
States. Although the Department will not set targets for those
measures, we do intend to report on them in our March 2000 performance
report.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. Appendix A of the Department's Summary Performance Plan
contains a matrix that tracks the Department's long-term goals to the
fiscal year 1999 annual performance goals.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Our internal Spring Call for fiscal year 1999 budget
estimates included instructions for components' use in developing their
performance plans. The guidance emphasized linkage between component
annual performance plan goals and the Department's Strategic Plan
goals. In addition, in May 1997, the Attorney General issued a
memorandum to the heads of Department components stressing that their
resource requests demonstrate a clear and direct connection between the
Department's long-term goals and strategies and the components'
specific performance goals. In it, she emphasized that components
present a clear, direct link to one or several of the strategic goals
in the DOJ Strategic Plan and that they identify those summary-level
performance indicators that best represent the principal outputs and
outcome of their major programs.
To articulate our specific plans for fiscal year 1999, the
Department looked carefully at each strategic goal outlined in the DOJ
Strategic Plan to determine what actions need to be taken in fiscal
year 1999 to make progress toward meeting those goals. Using the seven
core functions of the Department, outlined in the DOJ Strategic Plan,
as a roadmap, the Justice Management Division (JMD) staff worked with
each component individually to develop linkages between the DOJ
strategic goals and those of the components supporting the various
goals and to establish realistic fiscal year 1999 measures for each of
the components to ensure progress toward their goals.
In addition, JMD staff worked with departmental components to
ensure coordination of cross-cutting efforts aimed at attaining the
same or related goals. Teams composed of component representatives
developed outcome measures that will gauge the Department's efforts in
meeting its fiscal year 1999 goals.
As well as describing what we plan to achieve in fiscal year 1999,
we incorporated a referral system into the DOJ Summary Performance Plan
to point readers to the applicable component plans. The references
noted in the Summary Plan allow readers to drill down to the more
detailed component plans to examine their outcome measures.
As we stated previously, we developed an array of measures, both
output and outcome, for each of our goals. We were not able to develop
outcome measures for all of our strategic goals. Because achieving any
goal involves a process, there are interim milestones that an
organization must meet. In fiscal year 1999, in many cases, we will be
in the middle of the process of attaining our strategic goals, and the
measure of our success will often be an output measure. To the extent
feasible, the goals and indicators in the DOJ Summary Performance Plan
focus on intermediate or end outcomes, but many are more ``output''
than ``outcome'' oriented. As we continue to improve our performance
plans in the years ahead, we will attempt to include more and more
outcome type measures.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis so
that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
Answer. For the vast majority of our indicators, data are already
collected and reported through existing statistical series and internal
Justice data systems. Pages 27 and 28 of our Summary Performance Plan
describe the principal sources of fiscal year 1999 performance data.
However, we recognize that improvements are likely to be needed. As
we stated earlier, in fiscal year 1998, we will work with our major
component organizations to continue to systematically assess our
performance data needs and capabilities. We anticipate convening a DOJ
working group, comprised of senior level officials, to oversee this
assessment and provide recommendations for action. Recommendations may
involve additional resources to support new or improved data collection
systems and practices. There is little doubt that performance
measurement is likely to entail making changes to current tracking and
reporting systems.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Answer. For the most part, line program managers have access to,
and the need for, much more detailed program performance information
than that provided to senior-level officials.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Generally, yes. However, this will be one of the questions
addressed by the working group.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. Yes, we have faced this sort of difficulty. However, we
have determined that the best way to proceed at this time is to ensure
that each major budgetary ``account'' is supported by a GPRA-based
performance plan that includes programmatic objectives and indicators.
We believe that integrating GPRA requirements and concepts in this way
allows a realistic link between dollars and results within the existing
budget account structure. However, as noted previously and below, this
does not mean that the opportunity is lost to propose some
restructuring in the future.
Question. Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. It is difficult to say that linkages would automatically be
clearer. In some respect, the way in which this Department has
implemented GPRA allows for a more extensive presentation of program
performance goals and expected results. As this Committee is aware, the
``program'' structure by which our resources are displayed in
Congressional budget justification material is more detailed than the
``budget activity'' account structure contained in the President's
Budget. We believe the thematic presentation of our component
organizations' performance plans allows a stronger emphasis on an
agency's key mission priorities that are not artificially constrained
by budget structure. This thematic approach also encourages a sharper
focus on more cross-cutting program goals and tends to establish
accountability at higher managerial levels.
Question. If so, would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. As indicated above, we are not prepared at this time to
propose any modification to the existing structure. As part of our
internal fiscal year 2000 planning process, we will ask our component
organizations whether they intend to propose any such changes. These
types of decisions entail significant revisions to existing budget and
financial management systems, and must be undertaken only after careful
deliberation within Department's components.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. As explained above, we have not yet determined whether
there will be any modifications to our budget structure proposed.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
managerial cost accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. The Department of Justice has not yet implemented the new
managerial cost accounting standards. Over the next four months, the
Department is undertaking a study and evaluation to assess compliance
with the new managerial cost accounting standards and to establish
consistent classification definitions required by the new standards.
Existing Departmental systems currently provide a classification
structure necessary to satisfy basic cost accounting requirements. The
Department's organization structure and accounting classification
structure facilitates the accounting for costs [inputs] by component
and by program or activity within components. The new standards require
agencies to examine and realign existing classification structures as
necessary to ensure appropriate integration with and support for Budget
Formulation and Strategic Plans.
The Justice Bureaus and the Justice Management Division (for the
Offices, Boards and Divisions) individually maintain financial
information classification structures that employ common data elements,
common transaction processing, consistent internal control and
efficient transaction entry. Financial transactions for resource costs
are categorized in financial and non-financial systems by
organizational unit [reporting entity and component], funding
identification [account symbol and year], accounting classification
[standard general ledger, object class, entity non-entity, federal non-
federal, and reporting period], and financial accumulators, i.e., units
of measurements. However, classification structures must be reviewed
Departmentally for formal and consistent recognition of responsibility
segments. In addition, classification structures must be designed to
effectively and efficiently record cost information by Program and
Project within and across responsibility segments. The Department will
convene a special Working Group to document and establish a common set
of definitions necessary to facilitate a determination of technical
compliance or non-compliance with the new standards.
With respect to costing methodologies, the Department is engaged in
a broad range of diverse operations which necessitates the flexibility
to utilize different costing methodologies. Department components
primarily use the following costing methodologies: Job order costing
for discrete jobs [construction projects, audit assignments]; Process
costing for unique programs engaged in activities involving a regular
process [Prison industries]; Standard costing in non-financial systems
[reimbursable service providers]; and Activity-Based costing, which is
used by some Department components in conjunction with Job order and
Standard costing .
Question. Will you be able in the future to show this committee the
full and accurate cost of each activity of each program including those
calculations of such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation?
Answer. Yes, in all material respects.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, in all material respects.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. We believe that performance data should be interpreted and
used with caution, especially in the initial period of GPRA
implementation. Our reasons include:
Performance measurement in the Federal Government is still in its
infancy. Although output data have been collected and reported for
years, the more outcome-oriented information demanded by the Results
Act is new. We need time to identify, test, and validate indicators
that fairly and accurately capture outcomes, especially in the areas of
criminal investigations and prosecutions and civil litigation.
In a number of areas, baseline data are not available, which makes
the setting of a target little more than guesswork. One of the clearest
examples is the lack of agreed-upon data on the availability of illegal
drugs. We are working with ONDCP to address this issue. We are also
taking steps to obtain baseline data in several other areas, such as
the number of communities implementing community policing. But there is
a long way to go.
Performance is heavily influenced by factors external to the
Department of Justice. Outcome data, although important, will not
demonstrate the extent to which the activities undertaken by the
Department have, in fact, contributed to the outcomes achieved. To
establish these relationships, more systematic evaluation is required
to ascertain just what has caused the particular outcome and why.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. No. Our strategic plan provided a solid foundation for our
fiscal year 1999 performance plan and budget request. Each of our
annual performance goals relates directly to a long-range goal set
forth in the strategic plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
immigrant traffic between alaska and asia
Question. In my judgment, the Department has failed to recognize
the increased traffic of immigrants between Alaska and Asia, especially
eastern Russia. More and more Alaskans are complaining about the lack
of Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel and resources
necessary to support an efficient immigration process between Alaska
and Russia. What will the Department do to address these concerns?
Answer. Traffic between Russia and Alaska consists mainly of
international flights which are inspected by INS personnel in
Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska Airlines has weekly service between
Vladivostok and Anchorage while the Russian airline, Aeroflot, has
charter flights from various points of origin during the summer months.
There are also occasional ship inspections, which are handled by our
Anchorage office. There have been, to our knowledge, no undue delays in
the inspections. Currently, INS has 65 personnel working in Alaska--up
55 percent from fiscal year 1993. The District Director in Anchorage
recently traveled to Fairbanks to explore the possibility of acquiring
space for a future position in that city. At the present time we are
unaware of a need for additional resources in Alaska.
indian country in alaska
Question. The administration now recognizes 227 Alaskan villages as
tribes. The question of whether Indian Country exists in Alaska is
presently before the Supreme Court. However, without regard to the
Indian Country issue there exists a large problem involving law
enforcement and judicial processes in these villages. I am currently
working with Alaska's governor and the state legislature to develop a
program to provide these communities with improved law enforcement
services and better judicial processes. Will you, as Attorney General,
appoint a representative from the Department of Justice to join us in
the planning and implementation of this program?
Domestic violence and child abuse are major problems in Alaska's
rural communities. Any successful program must recognize and provide
resources to combat these problems. These areas are not exclusively
native. The rights of non-native Alaskans and non-citizen immigrants
must be considered in all stages of law enforcement and throughout the
judicial process. I believe that a cooperative program by Alaska and
the Department is the best vehicle for addressing these issues. Could
we arrange a meeting with the Attorney General, the Governor of Alaska
and the Congressional Delegation to discuss the Department's
participation in this program?
Answer. On February 25, 1998, the Supreme Court held in State of
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government that the fee
lands provided by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq., did not constitute Indian country pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1151. In the wake of Venetie, therefore, the State has
certain regulatory authorities over ANCSA lands, which it would not
have if those lands were Indian country. The Supreme Court did not
address, however, whether there are other sources of governmental
authority for Native villages that are not limited to Indian country.
The Department's preliminary view is that a Native village retains
sovereign authority over its members even if the village does not
possess land that qualifies as Indian country.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State of Alaska appears to have taken a similar position.
In its brief before the Supreme Court in Venetie, the State noted that:
``Generally speaking, Indian tribes may govern their own internal
affairs, and thus may `punish tribal offenders,' `determine tribal
membership,' `regulate domestic relations,' and `prescribe rules for
inheritance for members' * * *. Tribal jurisdiction to regulate land
and the activities of non-members, however, turns on whether the tribes
occupy Indian country.'' Brief for Petitioner at 12-13 n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether or not Native villages retain law enforcement authority and
adjudicatory jurisdiction after Venetie, we must all work to improve
delivery of law enforcement and judicial services to Native villages. I
commend your efforts to improve these vital services, and the
Department would be pleased to assist you in these efforts. To this
end, I am appointing Thomas LeClaire, Director of the Office of Tribal
Justice, to work with you in developing and implementing this important
program.
In addition, you have inquired about the creation of a Federal-
State partnership to address domestic violence and child abuse in
Alaska's rural communities. Family violence has a tremendous impact on
the growth and spread of crime. A child that observes domestic violence
grows up to accept violence as a normal part of life and is more likely
to become an abuser or an abuse victim. As a society we must take the
position that family violence will not be tolerated. I would be happy
to meet with the State Attorney General, the Governor of Alaska and the
Alaska Congressional Delegation to discuss a possible partnership to
address family violence in Alaska's rural communities. Because we will
need to work closely with Native villages in this effort, I encourage
you to include a representative of the Native villages in planning for
this partnership.
rural drug enforcement
Question. Alaska benefits from a cooperative federal-state program
addressing drug abuse in our major urban centers. However, the need for
help is even greater in our rural areas, where unemployment rates often
exceed 75 percent. High unemployment contributes to the
disproportionate impact drugs have on Alaska's rural communities. What
can the Department do to help Alaska and its rural communities overcome
these challenges and reduce the availability of drugs in these areas?
Answer. I agree that drug trafficking has a devastating impact on
our nation's smaller cities and rural areas. We are committed to
enhancing federal drug law enforcement resources statewide in order to
combat this growing threat. As such, DEA is in the process of
developing an enforcement program that will provide the residents of
smaller cities and towns in Alaska the increased Federal drug law
resources that have proven to be effective in larger metropolitan areas
across the country.
DEA currently helps to reduce the availability of drugs in rural
Alaska by working aggressively to reduce the supply of drugs statewide.
Anchorage, Alaska is the state's largest metropolitan area (population
257,000) and is the principal source city and drug distribution center
for the state. Supplies and trends observed in the greater Anchorage
area are directly correlated to the trends and types of drugs seen
throughout the state and in the more remote outlying cities and
villages. Therefore, efforts aimed at reducing the supply of drugs in
Anchorage have a ``ripple'' effect on the rest of the state and
ultimately help to lessen the availability of drugs in rural locales.
DEA's Anchorage Resident Office (ARO) is responsible both for
reducing the supply of drugs entering Anchorage and for the State of
Alaska as a whole. The ARO has an on-board staffing level of 14, which
includes 1 Resident Agent in Charge, 4 special agents, 5 task force
agents and 4 support/contract employees.
DEA is also already integrally involved in several cooperative
efforts with our federal, state, and local counterparts to diminish the
impact of drugs in both urban and rural areas in Alaska. For example:
In November of 1996, the DEA's ARO agreed to become an active
member of the Anchorage FBI's Safe Street Initiative under the title of
Interagency Community Enforcement and Criminal Apprehension Program.
This multi-agency initiative, consisting of numerous federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies in the Anchorage area, continues to
focus its combined efforts and resources to investigate individuals and
gangs involved in aggravated crimes of violence and drug trafficking.
This violence and drug trafficking radiates outwards from metropolitan
Alaska to the smaller communities throughout the state.
Since January of 1996, the ARO assigned a DEA special agent on a
full-time basis to the Alaska State Trooper's Statewide Drug
Enforcement's Airport Interdiction Unit at Anchorage International
Airport. Anchorage International Airport is a unique entity as it is
considered a focal or ``choke'' point for persons entering or leaving
Alaska. Therefore, the vast majority of drugs in urban and rural Alaska
will have passed through the airport, either arriving or being
transported out to the other more distant and remote consumer areas
such as Fairbanks, Juneau, Homer, and Ketchikan. Consequently, the ARO
considers the Airport Interdiction Unit to be an extremely valuable
investigative tool and will continue to develop cases initiated by this
unit.
These cooperative efforts have met with considerable success and
have had a significant impact on drug trafficking and related violence
in Alaska's urban and rural communities. Some significant
accomplishments follow.
--In September of 1996, the Fairbanks Police Department (FPD)
contacted DEA's ARO and emphasized the dramatic increase of
illegal street level trafficking of ``crack'' and associated
problems of violence in their area. FPD also requested DEA's
direct involvement, assistance, and expertise in dealing with
the situation. In close cooperation, ARO and FPD began an
intensive investigation which eventually led to the execution
of 13 search warrants and the arrest of 34 individuals. To
date, all defendants have been formally charged in state court.
The investigation received much media attention statewide, and
has had a considerable impact on the local ``crack'' cocaine
traffickers and the violence they caused.
--In June 1997, a cooperative DEA and Anchorage Police Department
(APD) investigation into the marijuana cultivation activities
of Raymond Sorenson culminated in the seizure of marijuana from
three separate rural grow sites owned by Sorenson. Sorenson was
arrested and charged in Federal Court in Anchorage and his
marijuana proceeds valued at approximately $600,000 were seized
by the government.
The DEA will continue to help the entire state of Alaska combat the
scourge of drugs by providing quality training to its federal, state,
and local counterparts. For example, the ARO has been contacted by
several state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the State
of Alaska to provide basic narcotic officer training, as well as asset
forfeiture training. The United States Attorney's Office conducted an
asset forfeiture school in Anchorage in November of 1997. In addition,
a two-week basic drug investigators school is scheduled at Anchorage
for May of 1998.
DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program is also available for
use by state and local law enforcement authorities in addressing the
issue of drug-related violent crime. The MET program was initiated in
1995 in response to the growing problem of drug-related violence that
plagues neighborhoods and communities throughout our nation. The MET
program represents the most ambitious domestic enforcement program that
DEA has ever undertaken to attack drug-related violence in America.
At the request of a police chief, sheriff, or district attorney, a
MET (composed of 8 to 12 DEA special agents) works in concert with
local police to dislodge violent drug offenders from the community. It
is DEA's goal to ensure that the state and local officials requesting
the MET deployment feel completely comfortable in inviting the agency
into their community.
DEA's Seattle Division Office currently has a MET stationed within
the division for use by state and local law enforcement in the State of
Alaska. The Special Agent in Charge of DEA's Seattle Division will, in
upcoming weeks, contact law enforcement authorities in Alaska to
reinforce the availability of this important enforcement resource.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
mexico drug certification process
Question. Attorney General Reno, the Administration is expected to
announce this week that it has again certified that Mexico is fully
cooperating in the drug war. Whether Mexico truly deserves
certification this year is an open question. Another open question is
whether the certification process itself needs to be altered or
discarded altogether.
Could you provide the Committee with an idea of how the Justice
Department works with the State Department as it reaches its decision
to recommend that the President certify a particular country?
Answer. The Department of Justice provides factual information and
assessments to Administration personnel regarding the cooperation, or
lack thereof, and compliance with the goals and objectives of the
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, of the major drug producing and drug transit
countries identified by the President; in 1997, there were 30 such
countries. Pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended,
the State Department requests relevant information from all pertinent
Departments regarding counterdrug cooperation and efforts. The
Department of Justice, from our perspective, provided an assessment of:
efficacy of narcotics laws and enforcement, including legislative
initiatives and bilateral law enforcement cooperation; extradition;
mutual legal assistance; money laundering and asset forfeiture; control
of precursor and essential chemicals; maritime cooperation; political
and official corruption; and political will.
Question. What role do the U.S. law enforcement agencies play in
the certification process? Could you please describe how these agencies
participate in the certification process, and how they interact with
each other, as well as the various offices at the State Department?
Answer. DEA and FBI support the annual certification process by
preparing country briefings on the major drug producing and transit
countries. These agencies also provide assessments of narcotics
enforcement; money laundering and asset forfeiture; control of
precursor and essential chemicals; maritime cooperation; official and
political corruption; and political will.
Question. How many man-hours did the Justice Department spend this
year on the Mexico certification decision? Would you please break that
down by agency and office?
Answer. The Department does not keep a record of this kind of
information and therefore we cannot quantify with precision the number
of hours Department personnel dedicated to the certification process.
We view the certification process as a year-round activity in which we
work in close cooperation with our international counterparts to
establish goals and work together toward achieving them. From our
perspective, our bilateral cooperation relationship with Mexico in the
area of drug law enforcement remains a work in progress. Our goal is to
eliminate any remaining obstacles to law enforcement cooperation with
Mexico in recognition of the threat posed to the national security of
both countries and the international community.
Question. What are your views on the best way to improve the
certification process? Is the process fatally flawed, or can you offer
Congress a way to fix it?
Answer. The annual certification process is required by federal
statute and can only be altered through the legislative process. The
U.S. is exploring other avenues to achieve multilateral counterdrug
cooperation, including a monitoring and evaluation system the
Administration and its regional partners in the Organization of
American States (OAS) have proposed. The objective of this multilateral
system is to enhance cooperation among our hemispheric partners against
drug trafficking, use, and their consequences.
Question. Do you support the notion of a multi-lateral drug treaty
for the western hemisphere? If so, would the treaty involve supply
reduction, demand reduction, or both? How would such a treaty be
enforced?
Answer. The transnational nature of the drug threat requires a
multilateral response, and therefore, the Department of Justice
supports the development of a multilateral counterdrug evaluation
mechanism in this hemisphere. Building on the 1994 Summit of the
Americas, the United States and its regional partners in the OAS have
proposed a framework for enhanced multilateral counterdrug cooperation.
The Administration expects to advance this concept of monitoring and
evaluation at the April 1998 Summit in Santiago, Chile.
Question. I have been one of the Members of Congress pushing for
the United States to aggressively pursue the extradition of drug lords
so that they can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You state
that in 1997 Mexico extradited 30 individuals to the United States for
drug-related crimes. How many of these 30 were Mexican nationals? What
were the countries of origin for the remaining persons?
Answer. A total of 23 fugitives for whom extradition was sought by
the U.S. were surrendered by Mexico in 1997. Eight of them (seven
extraditees and one expelled fugitive) were for drug-related offenses.
Of the 23 fugitives surrendered, there were three Cubans, two
Canadians, one British, one Israeli, and 16 U.S. citizens. No Mexican
citizen was physically surrendered through the extradition process in
1997, although 10 Mexican nationals (from a total of 14 persons) were
found extraditable in 1997, by the Government of Mexico. These 10 cases
and a case of one other Mexican fugitive found extraditable in 1995 are
now pending appeals or resolution of their Mexican charges. Five of
those found extraditable in 1997, and the one found extraditable in
1995, are sought in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. Two other
significant Mexican traffickers, Florencio Blanco-Meza and Arturo Paez-
Martinez, have been arrested for purposes of extradition to the U.S.
One Mexican national has already been extradited in 1998, on sexual
assault charges.
Question. What are the current plans for the extradition of foreign
nationals this year? Could you give us the status of these proceedings
to date?
Answer. The U.S. Government has approximately 120 active
provisional arrest and extradition requests pending in Mexico. So far
in 1998, Mexico has extradited three fugitives to the U.S.: a U.S.
citizen on drug charges, a Spanish citizen for bank fraud, and a
Mexican national for crimes of sexual assault on minors. They also
expelled to the U.S. a U.S. citizen on bank (armored car) larceny
charges. In November 1997, the U.S. and Mexico negotiated a protocol to
their bilateral extradition treaty to authorize the temporary surrender
of persons for trial purposes and their return after prosecution to
complete the process or sentence against them in the country of their
initial arrest. The protocol, although signed, has not yet been
ratified.
counterterrorism technology r&d
Question. With the leadership of our distinguished Chairman,
Senator Gregg, this Subcommittee began a significant counterterrorism
initiative in the 1997 bill. These initiatives were greatly expanded
for fiscal year 1998.
The 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations
bill established a Counterterrorism Fund, providing $52.7 million for
several initiatives. The Fund included $11.5 million to undertake a
counterterrorism technology research and development program. The
Subcommittee provided $1 million for the Attorney General, in
consultation with other federal agencies, to develop a five-year,
inter-departmental counterterrorism and technology crime plan.
Ms. Reno, can you provide the Subcommittee with a status report on
the development of the counterterrorism and technology crime plan
funded through the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary
Appropriations bill?
Answer. The Conference Committee Report accompanying the 1998
Justice Appropriations Act requires the Department of Justice to
develop an interdepartmental Counterterrorism and Technology Five Year
Plan by December 31, 1998. In response to this Congressional directive,
representatives from the Department and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation developed an ambitious 13-page outline of issues to be
addressed in the final Five Year Plan. This outline has been circulated
to other agencies with key counter-terrorism responsibilities and their
comments have been incorporated into the outline.
A projected work plan has also been developed to assist the
Department in meeting the deadline of December 31, 1998 for submission
of the final Plan to Congress. In order to ensure the maximum amount of
interdepartmental participation in the development of the Five Year
Plan, a Core Agency Group, consisting of high ranking representatives
of 15 other federal agencies which have various counter-terrorism
responsibilities within the government, has been established to help
develop the Plan. The Core Agency Group had its first meeting on March
5, 1998. Each agency was asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire
soliciting information about current and anticipated programs,
training, research and development projects, and projected resource
needs in order to fight the perceived terrorist threat over the next
five years. Responses to the questionnaire will form the basis of a
discussion paper for use by specialized working groups to be
constituted from experts identified within the Core Agencies.
The working groups will meet during the spring to address major
areas of concern, such as crisis management, consequence management,
cyber-terrorism, information sharing and intelligence, critical
technologies/research and development. The working group discussions
and recommendations will form the basis for developing an interim Plan
that will be circulated to state and local officials, academic experts
and experts in the private sector for review and discussion during the
summer. The drafting of the final Five Year Plan will, therefore,
reflect consultation with the major federal agency participants in
efforts to combat terrorism as well as consultation with affected state
and local representatives, and experts from academia and the private
sector. As a result, the Department expects that the final Plan will be
a truly comprehensive one.
Question. Has the Department submitted a prospectus with estimated
time lines and major milestones for completion of this plan to the
Committees as was requested by February 1?
Answer. The Department has submitted to the Committees the 13-page
outline as well as an organizational chart and a chart of key dates and
milestones for completion of specific phases of the project through
submission of the Five Year Plan to the Committees.
Question. Do you anticipate consulting with Congress as this plan
is developed? Would you expect to complete this plan by the end of this
calendar year as directed by the Appropriations Subcommittees?
Answer. The Department recognizes the great interest that Congress
has in the development of the Five Year Plan. Understanding this
interest, the Department has been consulting with members of the
Congressional Subcommittees, as well as with staff members of each
subcommittee, in creating the outline for the Plan and discussing the
proposed development of the Plan from that outline. The Department
anticipates additional consultation with Congress as the Plan develops
during the next several months at the working group level. The
Department has developed the organizational plan and the work plan with
the expectation that the final Plan will be completed and submitted to
Congress by December 31, 1998. The breadth of the outline, as well as
the directive to create a plan that is truly interdepartmental in
nature, however, demonstrates that the project is an extremely
ambitious one.
The Department is committed to working to complete the Plan and
submit it to Congress by the end of this calendar year; the scope of
the project and the amount of interagency coordination required to
finalize a comprehensive Five Year Plan may make that deadline a
challenging one to meet. We will advise the Subcommittees, as the
project progresses during the next several months and as the various
expert working groups meet to develop their recommendations, as to any
necessary adjustments to the present timetable.
Question. How much is requested in the President's fiscal year 1999
budget for the Department of Justice to continue counterterrorism
initiatives?
How does this compare to the funding provided for these programs in
fiscal year 1998? Could you provide these estimates by agency and
program?
Answer. The Department's fiscal year 1998 budget includes $652
million related to counterterrorism/antiterrorism efforts, including
prevention, investigation, prosecution, detention, and incarceration.
This level reflects recent counterterrorism enhancements received in
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, as well as prorated segments of agency
program resources related to, or supporting, counterterrorism
activities. In 1999, the Department's counterterrorism-related
resources total $666 million. Attached is a chart that breaks out these
resource levels, by agency and by function.
In addition, the following identifies the $60.3 million in specific
agency program enhancements requested in the 1999 budget related to
counterterrorism and threats to the nation's critical infrastructure/
cybercrime, as well as the current 1998 funding for these programs:
Counterterrorism/cybercrime initiative
The United States relies heavily upon its interconnected
telecommunications and automated information systems for basic services
such as energy, banking/finance, transportation, and defense. Any
broadly successful effort by an individual, group, or country to
disrupt, destroy, or deny access to the National Information
Infrastructure (NII) could result in serious economic, defense,
national security consequences. This threat is heightened by the
increasing number of incidents of computer intrusions by individuals
who, although possessing limited resources, have demonstrated the
capability to compromise sensitive computer and telecommunications
networks extensively.
1999 COUNTERTERRORISM AND CYBERCRIME INITIATIVE BY COMPONENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agents/
Positions Attorneys Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)........................... 133 (75) $22,019,000
Criminal Division (CRM).......... 17 (13) 1,552,000
Attorney General's
Counterterrorism Fund (CTF)..... ........... ........... 36,703,000
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 150 (88) 60,274,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT 1998 COMPONENT CYBERCRIME PROGRAM RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agents/
Positions Attorneys Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI)........................... 167 (99) $23,909,000
Criminal Division (CRM).......... 21 (16) 2,345,000
Attorney General's
Counterterrorism Fund (CTF) \1\. ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 188 (115) 26,254,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of the $52.7 million provided within the CTF in 1998, $20 million is
to be used for reimbursing Departmental components for extraordinary
costs incurred in support of efforts to counter, investigate, or
prosecute terrorism, and to restore the operational capabilities of
offices destroyed or damaged by terrorist acts. The remaining $32.7
million in 1998 funds will be used as follows: $1 million to develop a
comprehensive intergovernmental counterterrorism and technology
strategy, $10.5 million for counterterrorism research and development,
$16 million for State and local first responder training and
equipment, and $5.2 million for State and local bomb technician
training at FBI's Hazardous Devices School.
The Department's 1999 budget includes $60.3 million in additional
funding for counterterrorism/cybercrime for the following:
Cybercrime and Counterterrorism Investigations.--The FBI's request
includes 124 positions (75 agents) and $11.6 million to establish six
additional Computer Crime Squads in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Miami,
Minneapolis, and Seattle.
Cybercrime/Counterterrorism Coordination, Threat Assessment, and
Early Warning.--The FBI's request includes 9 positions and $10.4
million in additional resources for the National Information Protection
Center (NIPC), formally the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
Threat Assessment Center. Of this amount, $4.6 million is to conduct
infrastructure vulnerability assessments and $4.3 million is to develop
a comprehensive Early Warning System. In addition, the request includes
funding for training, Computer Crime Squad equipment, and staff to
expand the operations of the Watch and Threat Analysis Unit.
Legal/Technical Challenges.--The Criminal Division's request
includes 17 positions (13 attorneys) and $1.6 million for the Computer
Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) to keep pace with the
rapidly changing legal and technological environment associated with
cybercrime cases. The Criminal Division plays a critical role in the
federal effort to protect critical infrastructure, secure lawful use of
the Internet, and respond to information warfare. The Division provides
advice to and coordinates federal efforts with state, local and foreign
governments.
Implementation of the Recommendation of the President's Commission
on Critical Infrastructure Protection.--The Attorney General's
Counterterrorism Fund request includes $36.7 million, including $33.6
million to implement the recommendations of the President's Commission
on Critical Infrastructure Protection, including funding for the
expansion of the NIPC and $3.1 to ensure the continuance of essential
DOJ/FBI functions during an emergency.
In addition to the requested enhancement, the Counterterrorism Fund
includes $16 million in recurred funding to continue efforts to equip
and train state and local first responders to terrorist incidents.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNTERTERRORISM RESOURCES
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counterterrorism/antiterrorism by fiscal
year
Agency/component -------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
budget budget enacted request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of
Investigation:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 188 277 348 327
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... 84 82 102 108
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... 5 9 8 8
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure 5 15 20 42
Research and development 2 4 4 4
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FBI......... 284 387 482 489
===========================================
United States Attorneys:\1\
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 15 15 15 15
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... 10 14 14 14
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USA......... 25 29 29 29
===========================================
Drug Enforcement
Administration:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... 5 2 2
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, DEA......... ......... 5 2 2
===========================================
Immigration and
Naturalization Service:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 1 5 6 9
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, INS......... 1 5 6 9
===========================================
United States Marshals
Service:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... 31 25 25 25
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USMS........ 31 25 25 25
===========================================
Federal Prison System:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure 12 11 16 20
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal
Prison System........ 12 11 16 20
===========================================
Tax Division:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 1 1 1 1
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, TAX........... 1 1 1 1
===========================================
Criminal Division:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 6 8 9 10
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... 1 1 1
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... 1 1 1 1
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CRM......... 7 10 11 12
===========================================
Civil Division:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 1 1 1 1
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Civil....... 1 1 1 1
===========================================
Community Relations Service:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CRS......... ......... ......... ......... .........
===========================================
Office of Justice Programs:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... 7 7 7
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... 10 12 10
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OJP......... ......... 17 19 17
===========================================
Office of Intelligence
Policy and Review:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 3 4 4 4
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OIPR........ 3 4 4 4
===========================================
Executive Office for
Immigration Review:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... ......... 1 1 1
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure ......... ......... ......... .........
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, EOIR........ ......... 1 1 1
===========================================
Counterterrorism Fund:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. 14 24 16 .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... 2 2 23 16
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... 1 2 1 3
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure 1 1 1 34
Research and development ......... ......... 12 .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CTF......... 18 29 53 53
===========================================
JMD-Security and Emer.
Planning Staff:
Law enforcement and
investigative
activities............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Preparing for and
responding to terrorist
acts................... 2 3 1 2
Physical security of
government facilities
and employees.......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Physical protection of
national populace and
national infrastructure 1 1 1 1
Research and development ......... ......... ......... .........
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal, JMD-SEPS.... 3 4 2 3
===========================================
Total, Department of
Justice.............. 386 529 652 666
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All U.S. Attorney figures are for specific CT enhancements received.
Figures do not include pro-rated base estimates. Fiscal year 1999
level does not include the USA's request for Cybercrime, which will
primarily be used to enhance USA's prosecution efforts in such areas
as child exploitation/child pornography and more traditional computer-
assisted or related crime.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COUNTERTERRORISM/ANTITERRORISM RESOURCES
[Budget authority in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Agency/component -------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bureau of
Investigation.............. 284 387 482 489
United States Attorneys..... 25 29 29 29
Drug Enforcement
Administration............. ......... 5 2 2
Immigration and
Naturalization Service..... 1 5 6 9
United States Marshals
Service \1\................ 31 25 25 25
Federal Prison System....... 12 11 16 20
Tax Division................ 1 1 1 1
Criminal Division........... 7 10 11 12
Civil Division.............. 1 1 1 1
Office of Justice Programs.. ......... 17 19 17
Office of Intelligence
Policy and Review.......... 3 4 4 4
Executive Office for
Immigration Review......... ......... 1 1 1
Counterterrorism Fund....... 18 29 53 53
JMD-Security and Emer.
Planning Staff............. 3 4 2 3
-------------------------------------------
Total, Department of
Justice.............. 386 529 652 666
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USMS figures do not include physical security of U.S. Courthouses
related to funding provided to USMS from the Judiciary Branch
Appropriation.
first responder training
Question. With the leadership of our distinguished chairman,
Senator Gregg, this subcommittee began a significant counter-terrorism
initiative in the 1997 bill. These initiatives were greatly expanded
for fiscal year 1998, again with strong leadership by our Chairman. The
1998 Commerce, State, Justice and the Judiciary Appropriations bill
established a Counter-terrorism Fund, providing $52.76 million for
several initiatives. The Fund included $21.2 million to improve State
and Local Response Capabilities in cases of possible chemical or
biological agents or explosive devices. This would be achieved through
the purchase of equipment and gear for first responder training efforts
by experts in the field.
What is the department doing to fully utilize facilities and
expertise in First Responder Training for Weapons of Mass Destruction?
How do you envision this initiative getting some practical
results--in other words, getting training out to the field so that our
law enforcement agencies have the ability to respond to terrorists
incidents if called upon?
Answer. In 1998, Congress provided $21,200,000 in the
Counterterrorism Fund to improve state and local response capabilities
in case of possible chemical or biological agents or explosive devices.
Of this amount, $5,200,000 was provided for the FBI's Hazardous Devices
School at Redstone Arsenal, Hunstville, Alabama. These funds will be
used for the expansion and renovation of the Hazardous Devices School,
which will allow the FBI to double the number of bomb technicians
trained each year for improvised explosives and WMD matters. In
addition, the funding will provide certain items and articles of
equipment for response to improvised explosive devices by bomb squads,
including Percussion Actuated Nonelectric disrupters, robots, and
reference materials.
Congress also provided $16,000,000 in the Counterterrorism Fund for
first responder equipment and training, specifically: (1) $12,000,000
to provide grants for acquisition of terrorism-related equipment for
state and local agencies; (2) $2,000,000 for support operations of the
state and local training center for First Responders at Fort McClellan,
Alabama; and (3) $2,000,000 for operations of a similar training center
at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. On March 26,
1998, I signed a memorandum delegating responsibility for these
programs to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
OJP's long history and experience working with state and local
jurisdictions provides the knowledge and infrastructure to effectively
and efficiently administer these programs. OJP will work extensively
with the FBI in curriculum development and determining state and local
requirements for the equipment program. OJP will also coordinate its
efforts with OJP's National Institute of Justice's Office of Science
and Technology and Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Executive Office
of National Security, and other Federal agencies as appropriate.
OJP has a long history of working with state and local agencies to
administer and implement grant programs and has established strong,
positive relationships with these jurisdictions. This, combined with
OJP's proven record of designing and implementing anti-terrorism
training for state and local jurisdictions, speaks strongly for OJP's
ability to administer these initiatives and provide first responders
with hands-on training, technical assistance and the field exercises
required to prepare them to meet the challenges of responding to
terrorist acts.
OJP will develop a comprehensive state and local assistance
``umbrella'' that will administer the new equipment program and the
training initiatives at Fort McClellan, Alabama and at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology, along with OJP's current $5 million
First Responder Training Program for Fire and Emergency Medical
Personnel. This umbrella will provide a focused, responsive, long-term
national capability to execute a comprehensive and highly coordinated
first responder training, test, and exercise program.
OJP's efforts will also include the utilization of a consortium of
universities, research institutions and other facilities that have
resources and expertise critical to the success of any program designed
to assist state and local jurisdictions respond to terrorist acts.
Initially, OJP will coordinate efforts with the several university and
research facilities included in the Conference Report. This will
further ensure that appropriated funds are used in a coordinated and
complementary manner. Further, such a consortium will provide OJP a
means to identify and coordinate resources and expertise that exist at
other universities and institutions across the nation.
OJP's existing grant-making infrastructure will enable it to
effectively and efficiently develop and implement the equipment
acquisition grant program, and will ensure these funds are obligated as
quickly as possible. Such equipment will include protective gear and
detection, decontamination and communications equipment. These
discretionary grants will be jurisdiction-specific and will be awarded
based on guidelines and criteria being developed by OJP in cooperation
with the FBI, which will consider the equipment needs of fire,
emergency medical services, hazardous materials response teams, and law
enforcement. This equipment list is also being coordinated with the
National Fire Academy and the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
OJP will provide necessary technical assistance to the applicant
agencies to ensure that the equipment acquired through this program is
the most appropriate and technologically advanced available. The demand
for first responder equipment is tremendous; there are an estimated
3,000,000 to 5,000,000 first responders working across the Nation.
With respect to the training program under development at Fort
McClellan, OJP is designing an incident management course for fire and
command staff as well as a tactical considerations course for hazardous
materials units and emergency medical personnel. OJP is in the process
of determining what personnel should be trained at the Fort, although
first responder training could be appropriate for state and local law
enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, public works
personnel, and state and local emergency management employees.
OJP is also working with the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology, which already has a training program in place, to establish
agreements as to training curriculums, trainers and trainee groups.
Based on its expertise in large-scale explosives, the Institute is well
suited for explosives-related research and operational bomb-related
training for state and local first responder personnel.
special immigrant juvenile status
Question. Attorney General Reno, last year this Subcommittee passed
minor modifications to the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status provisions
located in Section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act. Those modifications were intended to close a loop-hole in the law
whereby individuals who the statute was not designated to protect were
seeking and obtaining coverage.
Can you please update the Subcommittee as to the status of the
implementation of those modifications and whether the new system is
working more effectively?
Answer. In April 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) drafted and submitted proposed language to amend section
101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
On November 26, 1997, legislation contained in section 113 of S.
1022, fiscal year 1998 Appropriations Bill, amending the Act was signed
by the President.
INS is drafting field instructions for interim implementation of
the amendments to section 101(a)(27)(J) and will issue these
instructions shortly.
INS is also in the process of drafting interim regulations with a
public comment period for publication in the Federal Register. INS is
aiming to complete the drafting and review of the interim regulations
in July 1998. INS will review comments and draft a final rule for
publication in the Federal Register in December 1998.
border patrol deployment plan
Question. Ms. Reno, you state that since you became the Attorney
General in 1993, Department of Justice budgets have increased 87
percent as Congress and the White House have waged the war against
crime, illegal drugs, illegal immigration, youth crime and violence,
and most recently, terrorism. Congress has funded dramatic increases in
the numbers of Border Patrol agents within the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) over the past several years, and has
worked with the Administration to ensure that they are deployed most
effectively, even in the less heavily populated states such as New
Mexico.
INS authorized employment has increased from 18,400 positions in
fiscal year 1993 to 29,349 in fiscal year 1998. With the additional
personnel proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget, INS positions would
increase by more than 13,000 over a seven-year period.
How many of the INS positions are Border Patrol positions, and
would you provide the Subcommittee with a breakdown of the number of
Border Patrol agents funded, the number trained and deployed, and where
those deployments took place by region and state?
Answer. In 1993, of the total 18,130 INS positions, 4,863 were
Border Patrol positions. Of the total 28,894 INS positions in 1998,
9,351 (w/enhancements) are Border Patrol positions. Border Patrol
positions consist of agents, administrative support, radio technicians,
mechanics, and other maintenance operations support personnel. The
number of funded Border Patrol agent positions (including pilots) in
1993 were 4,288 and in 1998 the number is 7,947, including the 1,000
new agents. This meets President Clinton's goal of 7,000 Border Patrol
Agents by fiscal year 1998.
NEW AGENTS TRAINED AND DEPLOYED BY REGION AND STATE
[Fiscal year 1994-1998 Proposed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Region: Puerto Rico................................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Central Region:
Texas..................................................... ........ 328 100 360 625
New Mexico................................................ 50 15 31 76 45
Western Region:
Arizona................................................... ........ 128 251 228 196
California................................................ 300 229 428 328 134
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--There were no new deployments in fiscal year 1993 by the Border Patrol.
Question. I thank you for the work you have done to be sure that
the El Paso sector, which covers New Mexico, receives adequate
personnel, and I hope the Department of Justice, and especially INS,
will continue to focus on an overall border strategy, considering the
needs of New Mexico and Arizona, as well as the larger states of Texas
and California.
The Committee is currently reviewing the proposed INS deployment
plan for fiscal year 1998. What is the major thrust of the proposed
plan, and how do you envision it as a component of an overall southwest
border strategy over the next several years?
Do you think the plan is balanced in its approach to the problems
along the border and to providing southwest border states, including
New Mexico, the resources they need to address these situations?
Answer. The major thrust of the fiscal year 1998 deployments is to
target resources to counter the current high priority areas of illegal
entry attempts as well as anticipating shifts in the flow of illegal
traffic into previously little-used stretches of the border including
eastern California, New Mexico and the south Texas border. The overall
southwest border strategy for the Border Patrol continues to be gaining
control of the border by concentrating resources in the busiest illegal
entry corridors first. The challenge for the INS over the next several
years will be to gain and maintain control of the major corridors as
neighboring areas experience significant growth in illegal alien
traffic and as smuggling organizations seek new entry routes. The
overall strategy must also include a commitment to providing new
resources at the border ports-of-entry and to stronger enforcement in
the interior of the United States in order to ensure a balanced and
comprehensive approach to the prevention and deterrence of illegal
immigration. The National Border Control Strategic Plan was developed
to ensure that all of the Nation's border is provided with the
resources necessary to gain and maintain control of illegal entries
into the United States. The systematic and phased approach in the
deployment of significant resources is sound and has proven that
significant improvements can occur and will continue to do so in
control of illegal immigration at the border.
There must be a balanced approach to addressing illegal immigration
occurring along the border. A premise of the Border Patrol's National
Strategic Border Control plan is that every area of the border must be
addressed and that every area is an integral part of the national plan
to ensure that the entire border is controlled against illegal entry.
The INS plan is a balanced plan with the appropriate systematic
deployment of resources to the areas with the highest levels of illegal
entries first and continuing the deployments to other locations has
control is gained in those areas. The New Mexico border has been
targeted within the INS plan for additional resources over the last two
years due to the increase in illegal alien traffic coming from west
Texas and eastern Arizona. Operation Rio Grande is also currently
enhancing border enforcement throughout Texas and New Mexico and will
continue to do so as permanent staffing is deployed to these areas in
1998.
Question. Ms. Reno, in the proposed deployment plan, the El Paso
sector is slated for 45 Border Patrol positions, and 6 support
positions. The Department indicates that the majority of the positions
are slated for New Mexico, and especially for checkpoints, including
those in Deming and Lordsburg. How many agents and support positions
are specifically envisioned for New Mexico in the current deployment
plan of INS for the Border Patrol?
Answer. The current deployment plan includes 45 Border Patrol
agents and 1 support position to be assigned to stations located within
the State of New Mexico. This new deployment will bring the total
number of agents assigned to New Mexico stations up to 476. This new
agent level in New Mexico stations represents 48 percent of the total
991 agents assigned to the El Paso Sector. In addition to these new
deployments, the Border Patrol currently has Operation Rio Grande
underway which targets enhanced border enforcement along the Texas and
New Mexico border. The INS will be closely monitoring border conditions
as this operation progresses and is prepared to respond if necessary
with additional overtime and a detail of agents to New Mexico border
stations.
Question. What is the INS rationale for this level of personnel for
New Mexico out of the 1,000 new agents and additional INS positions
that are funded for fiscal year 1998? Do you think the plan treats New
Mexico fairly?
Answer. The National Strategic Plan, developed in 1994, outlines a
method by which INS will regain acceptable levels of control over the
border. This is done by focusing resources in prioritized target areas,
and remaining in those areas until each has reached the desired level
of management. This incremental approach to targeted enforcement has
been very successful in areas such as El Paso, Texas and San Diego,
California.
Last year, the Central Region of INS developed a Texas/New Mexico
Enforcement Strategy. The Central Region initiated enforcement efforts
in McAllen and Laredo, Texas (Central Region's Corridor I area) with
the commencement of Operation Rio Grande. The deployment of
enhancements into Central Region is heavy in the Corridor I area in
order to support the Rio Grande strategy. Operation Rio Grande is
working and acceptable levels of control in the Central Regions primary
corridor are on the horizon. New Mexico is part of the Central Region's
enforcement strategy, and will become the primary target focus of the
strategy as acceptable levels of control are gained, incrementally,
inland from the Gulf of Mexico.
The plan is fair to New Mexico, in that, if we do not hold to the
strategy and were to begin diluting our resources, New Mexico would
receive more personnel in the short term, but the long-term impact
would be a lack of acceptable control across the border.
Question. Were this deployment to be completed, how many Border
Patrol agents and INS personnel will be serving in New Mexico, and
where would these people be deployed? Could you justify this allocation
based upon caseload factors, areas to be covered, etc, and provide that
information for the hearing record?
Answer. Provided below are the staffing levels anticipated upon the
completion of the 1998 deployments to the Border Patrol stations
located in New Mexico:
Border Patrol Agents (includes supervisory personnel)
Las Cruces........................................................ 127
Alamogordo........................................................ 76
Santa Teresa...................................................... 127
Deming............................................................ 83
Lordsburg......................................................... 34
Albuquerque....................................................... 4
Carlsbad.......................................................... 6
Silver City....................................................... 2
Truth or Consequences............................................. 17
Provided are the staffing levels anticipated upon the completion of
the 1998 deployments to the INS offices located in New Mexico:
Investigations
Albuquerque--1 Officer in Charge; 1 Assistant Officer in Charge;
and 13 Criminal Investigators.
Inspections
Albuquerque--1 Immigration Inspector.
Santa Teresa--3 Immigration Inspector.
Columbus--1 Senior Inspector; 1 Special Operations Inspector; 1
Supervisory Inspector; and 8 Immigration Inspectors.
Detention and Deportation
Albuquerque--1 Deportation Officer and 3 Deportation Enforcement
Officers.
Adjudication
Albuquerque--3 District Adjudication Officers.
The goal of the Central Region Strategy and Operation Rio Grande is
to positively impact on the greatest number of people living and
working along the border by incrementally achieving acceptable levels
of control along the entire southwest border. To achieve the greatest
impact, Central Region prioritized high population areas that were
experiencing high levels of illegal immigration. New Mexico is less
populous than Texas and has fewer large metropolitan areas impacted by
the illegal border crossing problem. The remote nature of New Mexico's
border with Mexico has deterred the high levels of illegal border
activity experienced in the cities of McAllen, Laredo, and El Paso. As
of February 23, 1998, Central Region Border Patrol Stations apprehended
a cumulative total of 53,492 illegal aliens. Of these, 27,589, (51.5
percent) were at stations in Corridor I, while 6,278 (11.7 percent)
were apprehended at Border Patrol Stations in New Mexico.
Question. Are you confident that INS will implement this plan as
developed in consultation with the appropriate committees of the
Congress?
Answer. The INS has successfully demonstrated over the past four
years that the Border Patrol will deploy the new agents and support as
planned. The Service is confident that with the experiences learned
during this time that the implementation of the 1998 deployments will
be successfully accomplished. Due to uncertainties associated with the
constant changes in conditions on the border, it may become necessary
to make adjustments to the proposed plan during the year. However, no
permanent changes to the proposed plan will be made without the prior
notification and approval of the appropriate committees of Congress.
redeployment of border patrol agents
Question. Ms. Reno, as part of our action on the 1996 Commerce,
Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill, Congress assumed the
redeployment of 200 Border Patrol agents from interior offices to the
border. I think the rationale is valid in that Border Patrol agents are
highly trained law enforcement personnel who should be doing the job
they are trained to do. However, these Border Patrol agents also carry
out vital work in the interior of our states.
I understand that the Department is currently working on an
Integrated Interior Enforcement Strategy, and that the 1999 budget
includes $115 million to support 745 new positions to specifically
address illegal immigration in the interior of the United States.
How does the Department envision the Integrated Interior
Enforcement Strategy helping secure the southwest border?
Answer. A systematic approach to broad-based immigration
enforcement throughout the United States will help reduce incentives
for illegal migration and illegal activities, as well as remove
individuals unlawfully present in the country. This will have two major
results: To promote national security, public safety, economic and
social systems security, and preservation of constitutional rights; and
to help secure the border, including the southwest border, by making it
more difficult for illegal migrants to become securely established in
the United States, thus making it less attractive and profitable to
attempt illegal entry.
Question. Ms. Reno, do you believe there is a valid role for the
Border Patrol in some of our interior cities? What do you see that role
to be?
Answer. The first and foremost enforcement priority for the Border
Patrol is control of our borders, and we are making good progress in
that direction. Border Patrol agents have been effective working with
INS investigators in the interior of the country, and INS will continue
to use them in a limited, supporting role. The closer Border Patrol
agents are to the immediate border they are charged with protecting,
the more effective they are.
There is no question that interior enforcement operations conducted
by uniformed agents send a message to alien smugglers that there is
depth to INS enforcement efforts. Border Patrol traffic check and
transportation check operations are effective means of locating
smuggled loads of aliens and drugs and provide a deterrent effect at
the border. INS investigators are the most effective resource for
locating illegal alien criminals, smugglers and those employed
illegally in the interior of the country.
Question. What is the anticipated schedule for completing the
Integrated Interior Enforcement Strategy? What is the anticipated
schedule to implement this plan?
Answer. On September 17, 1997, INS contracted for a study to
develop a series of options to be considered in building an INS
Interior Enforcement Strategy. INS submitted an interim report to
Congress on April 6, 1998. Based on the recommendations of the study,
INS will submit a final report on its comprehensive, integrated
interior enforcement strategy. INS expects to complete this task during
the summer of 1998. Implementation of the plan should occur in fiscal
year 1999.
law enforcement in indian country
Question. I am pleased to see the Administration's focus on the law
enforcement situation in Indian Country, and its efforts to have the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Department of Justice agencies
work together on this issue. The Department of Justice budget
highlights a request of $157.5 million in new and redirected funds as
part of a joint $182 million initiative with the Department of Interior
and BIA to address the public safety situation on Indian lands.
Ms. Reno, could you please provide the Subcommittee with an
analysis of the new funding in the 1999 budget to be targeted to the
Indian Law Enforcement Initiative?
Answer. New funds for this initiative for the Department of Justice
total $51,475,000. In addition, BIA is requesting $25,000,000 in new
funding. The Department of Justice increases are summarized below:
--$4,657,000 and 50 positions (including 30 agents) for the FBI, to
be dedicated to investigations in Indian Country. To improve
the investigation of violent crime in Indian Country, including
homicides, child physical and sexual abuse, and gang-related
criminal activity, the FBI requests positions to implement two
new Safe Trails Task Forces and enhance four current task
forces. These additional positions will be assigned to the
Minneapolis, Phoenix/Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma
City, Las Vegas, and Seattle field offices.
--$3,352,000 and 31 positions for full-time Victim/Witness
Coordinators to be assigned to FBI resident agencies with
jurisdiction that includes Indian Country. The Victim and
Witness Protection Act of 1982, Crime Control Act of 1990, and
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 require
the federal criminal justice system to respond to the needs of
crime victims and witnesses. The 1995 Attorney General
Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance established
procedures for implementation of these laws by federal
investigative, prosecutorial and correctional personnel. The
Attorney General Guidelines apply in all FBI cases in which
individual victims are adversely affected by criminal conduct
or in which witnesses provide information regarding criminal
activity. The FBI developed a comprehensive plan to implement
the Attorney General Guidelines, which includes a detailed list
of duties to be performed by FBI Victim/Witness Coordinators.
While the Victim/Witness Coordinator position is primarily a
collateral duty in the FBI, increases in violent crime,
especially gang violence, homicides, and crimes against
children, dictate that additional full-time Victim/Witness
Coordinators are needed in Indian Country.
--$3,466,000 and 35 positions (including 26 attorneys) in support of
the violent crime programs of the offices of the United States
Attorneys with significant areas of exclusive federal criminal
jurisdiction. Federal investigation and prosecution of most
felonies in Indian Country cannot be deferred to a local
(county or state) jurisdiction. Federal law enforcement is both
the first and the only avenue of protection for the victims of
these crimes. Local jurisdiction applies only when both victim
and offender are non-Indians. Like the United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia, United States Attorneys in Indian
Country are effectively district attorneys for the citizens in
their districts; they have the sole responsibility for
prosecuting all major crimes committed by or against Indians on
the reservations in their districts. Additional positions are
needed if the Federal Government is to make a serious and
sustained effort to meet its jurisdictional responsibility to
Indian peoples.
--$20,000,000, part of the $95,000,000 request for the Office of
Justice Programs, Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention, Title
V At-Risk Children's Grants Program, will be directed to a new
juvenile justice prevention and intervention initiative in
Indian Country. Juvenile crime is a growing problem in Indian
Country. This initiative will improve coordination and
cooperation among tribal governments, federal agencies, and
other organizations serving Indian youth by developing,
enhancing, and supporting operations of tribal juvenile justice
systems, targeting alcoholism and substance abuse. It will also
focus on reducing the incidence of crimes against children in
Indian Country. Working with tribal justice systems, programs
will be tailored to fit the needs of Indian communities.
Programs could include after-school and tutoring programs;
Tribal courts and Teen Court activities and training; youth
shelters; treatment and intensive supervision services; child
abuse and neglect prevention, intervention and treatment
services; job readiness and skill building; legal advocacy for
Indian youth; and technical assistance and training, among
other activities.
--$10,000,000 of the $85,000,000 requested for a new Drug Testing
Initiative in 1999 will be targeted for Indian Country. As used
here, the term ``drug'' includes alcohol. The Drug Testing
Initiative will be a discretionary grant program and will
provide funding primarily to local units of government and
Indian tribes for the planning, implementation and enhancement
of comprehensive programs of drug testing, drug treatment, and
graduated sanctions for individuals within the criminal justice
system. Research has shown that when drug testing is combined
with effective interventions, drug use can be curtailed within
the criminal justice population. Further, recent studies
demonstrate that drug-dependent individuals who receive
comprehensive treatment decrease their drug use, decrease their
criminal behavior, increase their employment, improve their
social and interpersonal functioning, and improve their
physical health. Funding would be available to Tribes for
planning, implementation, and enhancement of comprehensive drug
and alcohol treatment programs; training and technical
assistance; and program evaluation.
--$10,000,000 for discretionary grants to assist tribal governments
in the development, enhancement, and continuing operation of
tribal judicial systems. Tribal courts are an integral part of
the criminal justice system in Indian Country, and have
experienced tremendous workload increases in the past few
years. This grant program will assist tribal courts by
providing financial and technical assistance for federally-
recognized Indian tribal governments for tribal judicial
systems; by providing training for federal, state, and tribal
court personnel; and by promoting cooperation and coordination
among tribal justice systems and the federal and state
judiciary systems.
Question. Could you also please provide the Subcommittee with an
analysis of the funds that will be redirected to this initiative from
within the Department if that is indeed the case? From the Department
of Interior, and specifically BIA?
Answer. Funds will be redirected from two grant programs within the
Department of Justice for this initiative: the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program and the Office of Justice Programs,
Correctional Facilities Grants Program. Redirected funds, totaling
$106,000,000, are as follows:
--$52,000,000 of the $711,000,000 requested for the Correctional
Facilities Grants Program in 1999 is targeted for construction
and renovation of detention facilities in Indian Country. There
are 71 detention facilities in Indian Country, most of which
are in such poor condition that they do not comply with
building codes or professional and Bureau of Indian Affairs
standards. These inadequate jail structures contribute to high
suicide rates among Indian detainees. Most Indian Country jails
are extremely crowded, and some Tribes lack facilities
altogether and must transport prisoners to other locations.
Since tribal officers usually transport these prisoners, police
availability for other law enforcement functions is reduced
further. Correctional Facilities Grants Program funding is
needed to improve detention in Indian Country by constructing,
renovating, and repairing Indian Country detention facilities.
--$54,000,000 of the $1,420,000,000 requested for the COPS program in
1999 will promote community policing and will improve law
enforcement capability on Indian lands. A total of 6 positions
and 3 workyears are also requested to administer this program.
As of February 1998, the COPS program has funded over 700
officers in Indian Country. In light of the continuing and
pressing need for additional uniformed officers in Indian
Country, the COPS program will expand its focus on Tribal
needs. Grants and cooperative agreements will be for the hiring
or rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers for
deployment in community policing, for additional grant projects
as authorized by law, and for other purposes (including the
procurement of essential equipment, technology, and training)
directly enhancing the capabilities of tribal law enforcement
officers and their agencies.
The funds included in the Initiative by the BIA are new monies
requested for fiscal year 1999. The BIA will focus the core of its
$25,000,000 request on providing additional trained and equipped law
enforcement and detention personnel in Indian Country in areas not
addressed by the Department of Justice (such as BIA-operated law
enforcement programs on reservations). This will allow both agencies to
maximize Federal funds without duplicating services. The BIA will also
implement a change in its budget and line authority in fiscal year 1999
to ensure a professional law enforcement and detention structure
realigned under the Director, Office of Law Enforcement Services, BIA.
Question. Did the Administration seek the input of the nation's
tribal leaders as it developed this law enforcement initiative?
Answer. Yes. On August 27, 1997, the President directed the
Secretary of the Interior and me, working in conjunction with tribal
leaders, to analyze law enforcement problems on Indian lands and
suggest ways for improving public safety and criminal justice in Indian
Country. To carry out the President's directive, we formed an
experienced, interdepartmental ``Executive Committee for Indian Country
Law Enforcement Improvement.'' One third of the 18 Executive Committee
members were tribal leaders who represent diverse interests, cultural
backgrounds, and geographic areas. In addition, at the request of the
Executive Committee, U.S. Attorneys led an unprecedented series of
tribal consultations on Indian Country law enforcement across the
country during September and October 1997. In the lower 48 states, more
than 205 Tribes participated in these consultations. In addition, an
official from the Department of Justice's Office of Tribal Justice met
with tribal leaders at the annual Alaska Inter-tribal Council
Conference. This funding initiative results from these efforts.
Question. What do you see as the highest priority need for law
enforcement resources in Indian Country?
Answer. The law enforcement needs in Indian Country center around
building a capable, trained, and equipped investigator and uniformed
officer cadre that is commensurate in size with other non-tribal areas
of the country that have similar population densities. In addition,
however, we need to keep our focus on the entire criminal justice
system needs, which include crime prevention and intervention efforts,
substance abuse treatment, and detention. Our highest priority should
be to maintain a balanced approach to improvements by providing fully
equipped and trained uniformed officers; FBI and BIA criminal
investigators, FBI Victim Witness Coordinators; Assistant U.S.
Attorneys; detention facility construction, renovation and repair
funding; funding for Juvenile Justice, substance abuse testing and
treatment, and assistance to tribal courts.
juvenile crime
Question. Please further explain the Administration's proposed new
Grants to Prosecutors' Offices to Target Gang Crime and Violent
Juveniles program. How would states qualify to receive funding under
this new program? How precisely would states use the new grant money?
Answer. This new program, known as the Prosecutorial Initiatives
Program, will be a discretionary grant program which will solicit
requests for funds directly from state and local prosecutors' offices.
Applications will then compete against each other so that the most
highly qualified receive funding. Specific program guidelines would be
prepared once appropriations have been provided. With these funds,
prosecutors' offices would be able to enter into partnerships with
school officials, probation officers, social service professionals and
community members to develop and implement programs targeting gangs,
gang violence and other violent crime, as well as implement strategies
to attempt early identification of youth at high-risk of joining gangs
or committing violent crimes. Prosecutors' offices would also be able
to hire new gang prosecutors to deal specifically with juvenile
violence crime cases, thereby speeding up the prosecution of violent
juvenile offenders.
Question. Please provide your estimate of how many new prosecutors
would be funded by the Administration's proposed new $50 million
Community Prosecutors Program?
Answer. Of this amount, at least 80 percent, or $40 million, is
available for hiring prosecutors. At an average of approximately
$60,000 each, about 650 prosecutors could be hired.
Question. I understand that the Administration has proposed to
restructure current Juvenile Justice Programs. Please provide a
detailed description of how this would work.
Answer. On February 17, 1997, the President announced a broad
initiative aimed at mounting a full scale assault on juvenile crime and
youth violence in America. The Administration's proposal was
transmitted to the Congress on February 25, 1997 as part of its ``Anti-
Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997.'' As part of that initiative, the
Administration proposed changes to the current structure and programs
of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP). OJJDP is the principal Department component with
responsibility for assisting state and local jurisdictions improve and
better administer their juvenile justice systems, help at-risk youth,
and further assist state and local jurisdictions prevent and control
juvenile crime and violence. OJJDP also has the responsibility for
working with other Federal agencies to provide for a coordinated
Federal approach to juvenile justice issues.
Under the Administration's proposal, states and local governments,
Indian tribal governments, and non-profit organizations would be given
increased flexibility in accessing and using Federal juvenile justice
grant funds, while still ensuring that monies are targeted to places
that need the most help and to programs and activities that work.
Specifically, this proposal:
--Restructures many of OJJDP's categorical grant programs (e.g.:
gangs, mentoring, etc.) into one flexible discretionary grant
program. This would allow individual communities to receive
assistance unique to their needs and would also allow OJJDP to
target funding to programs aimed at addressing critical issues.
--Provides very specific funding to prevention programs through an
at-risk children's initiative. This component is based on the
recognition of the important role that prevention--particularly
programs targeted to after-school activities--plays in reducing
juvenile crime.
--Provides that 10 percent of all monies expended be used to fund and
support research and evaluation efforts. This is in recognition
that the Federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to
ensure that monies are spent wisely based on knowledge of which
programs work and which do not work. Further, an additional 2
percent of monies expended is dedicated to providing training
and technical assistance to states and localities to assist
them in planning and developing potential solutions to the
issues they are confronting.
--Eases the requirements States must meet--specifically in regards to
the housing of juvenile offenders--to obtain Federal funds.
--Creates a separate program for Indian tribal governments, which
would provide targeted assistance to these communities while
recognizing and protecting tribal sovereignty.
Question. I believe that one of the most important juvenile crime
issues facing the country is how to deal with juveniles who commit
serious violent crimes.
Does the Administration agree that as a condition of receiving any
Federal funds, states should be required to prosecute as adults
juveniles over age 14 who commit serious violent crimes?
Answer. The Administration shares your opinion that juveniles who
commit serious violent crimes pose an important challenge to our
nation. And clearly, some juveniles should be tried as adults,
especially if they have had their chances in delinquency court and
flouted that court's efforts to help them. But the question of which
juveniles in the state court system should be tried as adults, and
under what circumstances, ought to be a matter of state determination.
Indeed, nearly every State has already reformed its law in this area in
the last few years. The Administration does not believe that additional
instruction from Washington is needed.
radiation exposure compensation
Question. Ms. Reno, as you are aware of my longstanding interest in
implementation of the Radiation Exposure Compensation program, which I
authored and for which I have sought sufficient funding to fulfill its
purpose of compensating those who have sustained injury as a result of
the United States open-air nuclear testing and uranium mining
activities in the 1950's through 1970's.
The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes $2 million to
administer the radiation exposure compensation program, and $11.7
million for the Radiation Exposure Trust Fund from which payments are
made. I am pleased to see the Administration continue its support of
this program.
Congress has appropriated approximately $200 million to the Trust
Fund established under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
How many claims has the Department approved and how much has been
spent out of the Trust Fund to pay these claims?
Answer. From the inception of the Program in April 1992 through
February 1998, the Department has approved a total of 2,933 claims
valued at over $216 million.
Question. What is the current balance in the Trust Fund with which
to pay claims during fiscal year 1998? How many claims are currently
pending for compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund? Is the amount currently available in the Trust Fund sufficient to
pay claims for the remainder of the fiscal year?
Answer. At the end of February 1998, the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Trust Fund had a balance of approximately $28 million. At
that time, 272 claims and appeals were pending. The amount in the Trust
Fund is sufficient to pay claims for the remainder of fiscal year 1998.
Question. Congress provided an advance appropriation of just under
$16.3 million for fiscal year 1997 for the payment of these claims, and
another $4.4 million was approved in the 1998 bill. Would you please
provide the Subcommittee with updated information on the number of
claims approved for payment from the Trust Fund, the average amount of
the claims approved, the number of claims denied, and the general
reason for denial of these claims?
Do you believe the amount requested for fiscal year 1999 is
sufficient to continue the processing of pending and anticipated claims
under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for the full period of
fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Through February 1998, a total of 2,933 claims were
approved--with an average value of $73,810--and 3,193 claims were
denied. Claims are denied if one or more of the following eligibility
criteria are not met: disease, exposure and identification of the
proper party to file a claim. Downwinder and onsite participant claims
are most frequently denied for failure to establish a compensable
disease. Most uranium miner claims are denied because documentation
does not establish exposure to the requisite amount of radiation during
the course of underground uranium mining employment.
The amount requested for fiscal year 1999 is sufficient to continue
the processing of pending and anticipated claims filed under RECA. The
request amount is based on assumptions regarding the number of claims
approved. The projections took into account historic trends in the
receipt and approval of applications as well as the impact of pending
regulatory changes and statutory changes proposed by the
Administration.
--The major regulatory changes would (1) allow high-resolution
computed tomography as proof of non-malignant respiratory
disease, (2) allow biopsies as proof of lung cancer, (3)
consider any former smoker who ceased smoking 15 years before
diagnosis of certain compensable diseases to be a non-smoker,
and (4) define pulmonary impairment standards that are
consistent with the recommendations of the American Thoracic
Society.
--The projections for 1999 also assumed that Congress would enact
changes to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that were
proposed by the Administration one year ago. The proposal would
(1) define eligibility criteria for some uranium miners to
qualify for partial compensation, (2) add two new sets of
exposure criteria for lung cancer, (3) extend compensation for
silicosis or pneumoconiosis to all miners, and (4) expand the
list of compensable diseases for downwinders and onsite
participants. Should this legislation be enacted, there would
be an initial surge of claims received and approved. With the
straightforward applications being processed first, the number
of claims approved would balloon in 1999, tapering off
thereafter.
The pending 1999 request for $11,717,000, when combined with
balance expected to be available in the beginning of the year of
$18,941,000 and anticipated interest earnings, will be sufficient to
cover the $31,233,000 in payments that would be made under an amended
Act and revised regulations. Although the regulatory changes are
progressing, with implementation possible as soon as April 1998, the
statutory changes have yet to be sponsored.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Est. 1998 Est. 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting Balance................. $14,502 $28,952 $18,941
Plus New Appropriation........... 30,000 4,381 11,717
Plus Interest Earnings........... 332 633 575
Minus Payments................... -15,882 -15,025 -31,233
--------------------------------------
Ending Balance............. 28,952 18,941 ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. For the record would you please provide the Subcommittee
with a breakdown of the types of claims approved or disapproved
(childhood leukemia, other downwinders, onsite participants, or uranium
miners), the number of claims currently pending, and the amounts
disbursed by type of claim paid?
For my use, would please provide the same information specifically
for claims from New Mexico, including the total claims received, the
total claims approved, the total claims denied, and the total claims
pending?
Answer. The following table lists, by category, the total value of
the awards approved by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, as
well as the number of claims and appeals received, approved,
disapproved and pending at the end of February 1998.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--APRIL 1992-FEBRUARY 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending/Pending
Value of Claims Initially Initially Appeals Appeals Appeals -----------------
Awards Received Approved Disapproved Received Approved Disapproved Claims Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood leukemia.................................... $1,100,000 41 22 19 9 ........ 8 ....... 1
Other downwinder...................................... 69,620,000 2,608 1,372 1,153 203 21 179 83 3
Onsite participant.................................... 11,573,213 868 157 679 144 13 127 32 4
Uranium miner......................................... 134,191,500 2,865 1,252 1,472 318 96 214 141 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 216,484,713 6,382 2,803 3,323 674 130 528 256 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to claims for which the primary claimant resides in
New Mexico, the Department has approved 346 claims, with a total value
of over $34 million. The following table lists, by category, the value
of the awards and the number of claims and appeals received, approved,
disapproved and pending at the end of February 1998.
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM--NEW MEXICO--APRIL 1992-FEBRUARY 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ending/Pending
Value of Claims Initially Initially Appeals Appeals Appeals -----------------
Awards Received Approved Disapproved Received Approved Disapproved Claims Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Childhood leukemia.................................... $50,000 1 1 ........... ........ ........ ........... ....... .......
Other downwinder...................................... 250,000 15 5 9 2 ........ 2 1 .......
Onsite participant.................................... 600,000 31 7 23 6 1 5 1 .......
Uranium miner......................................... 33,134,500 923 299 566 112 33 74 58 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 34,034,500 970 312 598 120 34 81 60 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Answer. It is difficult to estimate with precision the number of
claims that might still be filed under the existing Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act. The only long-range projections of which we are aware
were developed in early 1997 for the President's Human Radiation
Interagency Working Group. These estimates of potential awards
pertained to miners with lung cancer claims. They were based on
relative-risk models using the New Mexico and Colorado Plateau cohorts.
Under the existing Act, about 440 additional awards to miners with lung
cancer would be expected to be approved by the termination of the Trust
Fund in 2012. If the Act is amended as proposed, over 1,000 additional
awards were estimated to be made through 2012.
district court ruling in the line item veto case
Question. Attorney General Reno, as you know, the Federal District
Court for the District of Columbia has recently held that the Line Item
Veto Act is unconstitutional. Your office has filed an appeal and I
understand that we might have a decision from the Supreme Court as
early as this June. In the meantime, Congress will continue to
legislate and many citizens will wonder about the status of the laws
(and the related spending) affected by the President's exercise of the
cancellation authority granted to him under the Act.
Can you please tell the Subcommittee what your office will advise
the Office of Management and Budget and the President with respect to
the effect of the District Court's ruling upon the items which the
President has canceled?
Answer. During the pendency of the appeal, the particular
cancellations that are directly at issue in the appeal will remain in
effect. Likewise, all other existing cancellations will remain in
effect. The District Court declared the Line Item Veto Act
unconstitutional, but did not issue an injunction. Thus, the Government
is ``free to continue to apply the statute.'' Kennedy v. Mendoza-
Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 155 (1963) (``There was no interdiction of the
operation at large of the statute. It was declared unconstitutional,
but without even an injunctive sanction against the application of the
statute by the Government to [the plaintiffs]. Pending review * * * in
[the Supreme] Court, the Government has been free to continue to apply
the statute.'').
Question. During the pendency of the appeal, what is your position
on the ability of the President to use the authority under the Line
Item Veto [Act] on any legislation which the Congress might place
before him during this interim?
Answer. The President retains his authority under the Line Item
Veto Act during the pendency of the appeal. He reserves the right to
exercise that power when necessary until the Supreme Court decides the
appeal.
Question. Assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the District
Court and finds that these appellees have standing and that the Line
Item Veto Act is unconstitutional, what will be your position with
respect to the practical effect of such a holding upon the items which
the President has canceled?
Will the funds become available for obligation?
Will HCFA permit the State of New York to make use of its provider
taxes?
Will the tax benefits become available to the affected taxpayers?
Answer. The effects that might follow from a Supreme Court decision
striking down the Line Item Veto Act in whole or in part depend upon
the Supreme Court's judgment and its reasoning. We will review any
Supreme Court decision carefully before determining whether such a
ruling nullifies existing cancellations and, if so, whether cancelled
funds and/or tax benefits then become available. We will of course
abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
firearms
Question. Firearms being stolen and stolen guns being used in the
commission of crimes are serious problems nationwide. What action is
the Justice Department taking to address these issues?
The Brady Bill calls for the establishment of a permanent National
Instant Criminal Background Check System to be accessed by federal
firearms licensees before transferring any firearm to nonlicensed
individuals.
The law requires that the permanent system be established by
November 30, 1998. Will this instant check system be ready on time, and
be able to deliver on-line instant responses?
Answer. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) will be established by November 30, 1998. Users will be able to
receive an on-line instant response within 30 seconds.
Question. The provisions of sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun
Control Act, as amended by the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996, prohibit the sale
of 10 specified groups to people, including those who have been
convicted in any court of misdemeanor crime or domestic violence.
Exactly what information is being collected on individuals?
Answer. The NICS will interface with existing systems such as the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Interstate
Identification Index (III) and future systems such as NCIC 2000 and the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) to
provide information on individuals who may be prohibited from
purchasing a firearm. The NCIC will provide information on persons who
are fugitives from justice, deported felons, and persons who are
subject to a court order restraining them from harassing, stalking or
threatening an intimate partner. The III will provide criminal history
records on over 32 million subjects. The NICS will contain records,
provided by Federal and state agencies, on individuals who (a) have
been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; (b) are unlawful
users of or addicted to any controlled substances; have been
adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental
institution; (d) are illegal or unlawful aliens; or (e) have renounced
their U.S. citizenship. Records contained in the NICS will include the
name, at least one numeric identifier (e.g., date of birth), and
physical description of an individual, and will indicate the category
under which the individual is prohibited from receiving a firearm.
Question. What active measures are being taken to ensure the
initial and continued integrity and accuracy of this information?
Answer. The NICS will be programmed to permit only the agency that
entered a record, to modify or cancel the record. The FBI will
periodically audit federal and state agencies contributing records to
the NICS to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the data.
Question. What viable remedial options will be available to
individuals who are unjustly denied the right to acquired a firearm
based on faulty information in the data base?
Answer. Any individual who is determined to be prohibited from
purchasing a firearm based on a NICS background check, may request the
reason for the denial. The denying agency must provide the individual
the reasons for the denial, in writing, within five business days of
receiving the request. If the individual feels he has been wrongly
denied, he may (1) submit an appeal to the denying agency, (2) direct a
challenge to the accuracy of a record, in writing, to the FBI, or (3)
bring an action against the state or political subdivision responsible
for providing the erroneous information, or responsible for denying the
transfer, or against the United States, as the case may be, for an
order directing that the erroneous information be corrected or that the
firearm transfer be approved.
Question. What actions are being taken to protect individuals from
the system being abused to invade their privacy rights?
Answer. First, access to NICS information will be restricted to
authorized agencies only. Second, the NICS will comply with the NICS
Security Guidelines, the NCIC Security Policy of 1992, and applicable
federal laws, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and Computer Security Act
of 1987, for protecting information. Additionally, federal regulations
on the privacy and security of NICS information propose that any state
or local agency, Federal Firearms Licensees, or individual shall be
subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and termination of NICS
privileges for the misuse of/or unauthorized access to the system.
Question. Section 103(1) of the Brady Act prohibits any department,
agency, officer, or employees of the United States from requiring any
record or any portion of the record generated by the National Criminal
Instant Check System (NICS) to be recorded in any facility owned,
managed or controlled by the U.S. or any state or political
subdivision. What precaution is the Justice Department taking to ensure
compliance with this critical safeguard provision and what permanent
ongoing measures will be taken to ensure continued compliance?
Answer. For security purposes, the NICS will automatically log all
incoming and outgoing transactions of the system. Transactions relating
to firearm transfer approvals will be maintained for 18 months. After
this time, information contained in the log that pertains to the person
or the transfer will be destroyed; only the unique identification
number and the date the number was assigned will be retained. The NICS
will not be used to establish any system for the registration of
firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions,
except with respect to persons prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 922(g) or (n),
from receiving a firearm.
Question. Are there any loopholes in this language that would allow
a governmental entity to abide by the letter of this law while not
following congressional intent? For example, what if a governmental
entity indirectly enabled private sector consultants to set up a
parallel offshore data base using advanced information encryption
technology that the government could have access to while not directly
controlling or managing it? Is such a scenario even the remotest of
possibilities?
Answer. No. The FBI believes such an arrangement could not be
legally made without the expressed consent of the FBI under contractual
agreement.
Question. If not, why?
Answer. The FBI has management control of the NICS, its operation,
and the maintenance of related databases, and as such is directly
responsible for establishing, monitoring and enforcing compliance with
regulations regarding the privacy and security of the system.
Additionally, the FBI conducts biennial compliance audits of State
Control Terminal Agencies and a random sample of local users. There
also exist conditions which all NICS users must comply with including
the destruction of all records of calls to the system that do not
result in the identification of firearms disabilities thus attempting
to prevent any establishment of a firearm registry using information
obtained from NICS.
Question. If there is even the remotest of possibility that a
scenario like this could happen, then what actions will the Justice
Department take to ensure that it will not happen?
Answer. Should such a scenario happen, the FBI and the Department
of Justice would investigate such an occurrence and prosecute those
responsible for any misuse of NICS data or access.
international crime
Question. During hearings last year, I discussed serious new
developments in international crime and its effect on Americans here at
home and abroad with Secretary of State Albright and FBI Director
Freeh. The Appropriations Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign
Operations Committee Report, expressed concern about the increase in
crime abroad and its direct and indirect impact on the United States.
The Committee also requested the Secretary of State to convene a new
Secretaries' Task Force on International Crime, in cooperation with
you, the Secretary of Treasury, and the O.N.D.C.P. Director, and report
to Congress by March 26, 1998 on specific issues which the Committee
outlined.
Although Secretary Albright's Report is not due to Congress for
another month, I would be interested to know what is the current status
of your participation in the formation of the task force?
Answer. The Department of State is taking the lead in responding to
the Appropriation Committee's request for a report on the U.S.
Government's efforts against international crime. However, I can report
that there is extensive cooperation between the Department of Justice,
the Department of State and other relevant federal agencies on
international law enforcement matters. These efforts are coordinated by
the National Security Council, which convenes regular interagency
meetings and committees to address the various aspects of international
crime. For example, Presidential Decision Directive 42 (PDD 42), issued
on October 21, 1995, ordered all government agencies to coordinate
their resources and efforts to develop a global response to
international crime. In response, the Department led an Administration-
wide effort to develop the International Crime Control Act (ICCA) that
seeks additional authority from Congress to respond to international
crime both in the U.S. and abroad. The Department also took the lead in
drafting the International Crime Control Strategy which is the U.S.
Government plan of action to prevent and respond to acts of
international crime.
Question. Are there any preliminary thoughts you wish to share with
us here today on what the Justice Department can do to help countries
reduce and prevent crime?
Answer. Because organized crime in foreign countries presents a
direct and immediate threat to U.S. nationals, businesses and
interests, both in the U.S. and abroad, the Department is expanding its
assistance to foreign countries to combat international crime. Of
particular concern to the Department are those activities involving
terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, computer crime, and
financial institution crime, as well as the integrity of our Nation's
borders.
The U.S. Government's plan against international crime is contained
in the International Crime Control Strategy and International Crime
Control Act which includes increasing our support of the anti-crime
efforts of foreign nations. The ways the Department of Justice will
continue to help countries reduce and prevent crime may be summarized
as follows: increasing our support of other countries' efforts to
identify and prosecute significant international criminals and
narcotics traffickers around the world; continuing our participation in
joint investigations and prosecutions of these crime groups and their
leaders; expanding our training of foreign law enforcement officials
and prosecutors; leading international efforts to sign and implement
multilateral treaties and conventions that address various elements of
international crime; increasing our negotiation and signing of
bilateral extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties to
facilitate the transfer of fugitives and evidence to, and from, the
U.S.; and finally, expanding our U.S. law enforcement presence overseas
to support foreign law enforcement, to arrest and punish fugitives who
have committed crimes against the U.S., to dismantle international
organized crime rings, and to strengthen law enforcement and judicial
systems around the world.
The Department understands that crime is no longer a national
phenomenon; it is an international problem that challenges all
countries. Only by continuing our cooperative anti-crime efforts with
foreign nations will we be able to successfully meet this challenge.
``state and local law enforcement wireless communications and
interoperability'' report
Question. The Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice
recently released a report entitled ``State and Local Law Enforcement
Wireless Communications and Interoperability: A Quantitative
Analysis.'' This report cites the need for additional radio spectrum
and improved wireless communication technology in the law enforcement
community.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 included language that frees up
additional 24 megahertz (MHZ) of the spectrum for law enforcement use.
Unfortunately, this spectrum will not be available until the Year 2006.
Considering increasing demands on law enforcement and disaster
response situations, what steps are being taken to maximize the
currently available spectrum? Our nation's telecommunications industry
has made large technological breakthroughs. Is the law enforcement
community taking full advancements that are already available in the
marketplace?
Answer. Technology exists that enables state and local law
enforcement agencies to more efficiently use currently available
spectrum. This technology includes the ability of law enforcement to
use narrower bands of spectrum when they communicate, thus allowing
these agencies to get more use out of the spectrum they have. The FCC,
under its ``refarming'' process, will not ``type accept,'' i.e., permit
the sale of, any new model equipment that is not capable of using 12.5
kHz channels instead of the wider 25 kHz channels. By 2005, ``type
acceptance'' will require the capability to operate at 6.25 kHz.
The type acceptance process only requires new model equipment to
meet the narrowband requirements. Mobile radio manufacturers can and do
continue to bring previously developed, wideband (25 kHz) equipment to
market. Because of the high cost of replacing wireless equipment,
particularly the cost of purchasing new model equipment, it is likely
that many public safety users will continue to operate at 25 kHz for
the next 20 or even 30 years.
The most common communications system for state and local public
safety remains government-owned Land Mobile Radio system, as opposed to
more recently available commercial carrier-operated technologies such
as cellular, Personal Communications Service, Enhanced Specialized
Mobile Radio and satellite. While a number of public safety agencies
use some of the carrier-operated services as a complement to their Land
Mobile Radio systems, internally operated Land Mobile Radio systems
remain the core system technology for public safety because they better
ensure availability of service, security and fixed costs.
Public safety Land Mobile Radio can be divided into digital vs.
analog and trunked vs. conventional systems, digital/trunked systems
being the most technologically advanced. Digital radio systems increase
spectrum efficiency. Digital also facilitates encryption and allows for
mixed voice and data transmission. A conventional radio system can
access only one channel at a time. If that channel is in use, the user
must either wait for the channel to become idle or manually search for
a free channel. In contrast, a trunked radio system automatically
searches all available channels for one that is clear.
The ability of state and local law enforcement to make more
efficient use of spectrum through existing technological advancements
depends in large measure on the availability of funding to implement
these expensive technologies. In accordance with the National
Performance Review's February 1997 ``Access America'' report, the
Department of Justice has created an interagency working group to
develop funding recommendations to assist state and local public safety
officials to improve their wireless communications systems. The working
group includes representatives from the Treasury, Commerce, Interior
and Agriculture Departments, the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the Office of Management and Budget, and the Federal Law Enforcement
Wireless Users Group. With the support of Congress, this effort will
begin to assist state and local law enforcement in maximizing currently
available spectrum and in taking advantage of technological
advancements in wireless communications.
Question. Improved technology, especially digital, allows more
individual transmissions to be packed into a smaller portion of the
spectrum and with greater security. To what degree will this alleviate
the current spectrum crunch for law enforcement?
Answer. Improved technology will alleviate the current spectrum
crunch for law enforcement only to a moderate degree. In 1995, at the
urging of House Chairman Harold Rogers, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration established the Public Safety Wireless Advisory
Committee (``PSWAC'') to provide advice on the wireless communications
requirements of federal, state and local law enforcement and public
safety agencies through the year 2010.
In making its recommendations in September 1996, the PSWAC took
into account the future efficiencies in the transmission of
information, including improved digital technology. Even assuming the
use of digital technology, the PSWAC concluded that state and local
public safety agencies needed an additional 97.5 MHZ of spectrum: an
immediate need for 2.5 MHZ of spectrum dedicated to interoperability,
proximate to the spectrum currently used by the majority of public
safety agencies; a near-term need for an additional 25 MHZ of public
safety allocations; and a longer-term need for another 70 MHZ.
While digital technology enables law enforcement agencies to get
more use out of the spectrum they have, it has the simultaneous effect
of creating a greater need for additional spectrum. Digital technology
facilitates the wireless transmission of data and video (e.g. mugshots,
fingerprints, missing persons photographs), which is enormously
beneficial to public safety activities. Data and video transmissions
require more spectrum than voice transmissions. Without additional
allocations of spectrum, public safety will not be able to take full
advantage of digital technology. Similarly, without sufficient funds to
purchase digital systems, public safety will not be able to take
advantage of this technology.
Question. With increased potential for large scale disasters,
including both natural disasters and non-natural disasters, like the
Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, it is increasingly clear
that an increased communications capacity among law enforcement,
firefighters, emergency medical, and emergency management agencies is
needed.
When the additional 24 MHZ of spectrum becomes available in 2006,
will it, or at least a sizeable portion, be dedicated to addressing
this growing need? What is being done to address this need between now
and 2006?
Answer. Although the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 calls for 24 MHZ
of spectrum in the 746-806 MHZ band to be reallocated to state and
local public safety agencies by the end of 2006, much of this spectrum
will only be made available as television broadcasters currently
operating in that band vacate the band and transition to digital
broadcast channels below 746 MHZ. Unfortunately, the Balanced Budget
Act includes an extension provision favored by the broadcasters that
may delay the transition to digital television beyond the December 31,
2006 cut-off date otherwise specified in the legislation. As a result,
the transfer of spectrum to public safety may be delayed indefinitely
in some markets.
The FCC is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings governing
the 24 MHZ of spectrum provided for in the Balanced Budget Act. The
FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking anticipates that a significant
portion of this spectrum will be dedicated to increased communications
capacity, i.e., interoperability, between public safety agencies. It
should be noted, however, that the PSWAC Report identified the need for
2.5 MHZ of spectrum for interoperability located proximate to the
majority of current public safety users. The bulk of current public
safety spectrum is located below 512 MHZ. Thus, even if a significant
portion of the 24 MHZ of public safety spectrum in the 746-806 MHZ band
is dedicated to interoperability, that will not benefit the majority of
public safety agencies. The additional 2.5 MHZ of spectrum called for
by the PSWAC for interoperability must still be reallocated.
There are a number of technical impediments to interoperability in
the current environment. Among the most significant are: (1) no
commercial grade radio can operate in a wide enough range of the
spectrum to reach the disparate radio bands that are currently
allocated to public safety; and (2) equipment from various
manufacturers may not be able to communicate, even though it operates
in the same band, because it uses incompatible transmission
technologies.
The Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings, and similar
disasters, are frequently cited to highlight spectrum interoperability
problems. These incidents call for what is generally referred to as
mutual aid or critical incident interoperability which, of necessity,
involves little advance planning and numerous participants. The 2.5 MHZ
of spectrum for interoperability called for by the PSWAC would be used
for ``mutual aid channels,'' that is frequencies that public safety
wireless radios operating in neighboring spectrum could all reach
through a uniform transmission technology.
To address interoperability in mutual aid situations today, one
agency often must provide a number of its hand-held radios to
representatives of the other agencies. Unfortunately, crucial time is
wasted in having to distribute the equipment to all of the response
participants. In disaster situations, saving minutes and seconds can
affect the ability to save lives.
A very effective arrangement for achieving day-to-day
interoperability for agencies operating in concurrent jurisdictions is
the creation of shared systems that use digital and trunking
technology. In a shared system, agencies pool their frequency and
monetary resources to build and operate a radio infrastructure using
compatible equipment. Shared systems improve spectrum efficiency by
allowing multiple agencies to communicate without the need for
additional spectrum dedicated solely to interoperability. More than a
dozen states and regions have begun to plan for shared systems between
their disparate agencies. Among the greatest impediments to development
of these systems is budgetary support. One statewide system can cost
more than $150 million to build.
The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) program, which evolved
from the National Performance Review and is co-chaired by the
Departments of Justice and Treasury, is examining interoperability at
the federal, state and local levels on a nationwide basis. The ultimate
goal of the PSWN program is to develop a plan by 2001 for achieving
national interoperability. The program is engaged in a number of case
studies focusing on individual regions and testbed demonstrations of
interoperability equipment. The PSWN program also sponsors regional
conferences to present its findings to the state and local communities
and to gather additional information to assist it in its mission.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
federalizing lorton
Question. Your budget proposes an increase of $300 million in
fiscal year 1999 to begin constructing Federal prisons to house the
approximately 7,000 District of Columbia prisoners housed at the Lorton
Prison in Northern Virginia.
Could you explain the total program and schedule for taking over
the District's prison program? How much funding in total will be
requested for how many prisons in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast?
Answer. BOP anticipates building a total of 6 new facilities to add
sufficient capacity to absorb the D.C. sentenced felon population. In
fiscal year 1998, $294.9 million was provided to the D.C. Corrections
Trustee for reimbursement to the BOP to cover site acquisition and
planning of four facilities, and full construction of two facilities at
existing BOP sites. The increase of $300 million in fiscal year 1999
will provide for construction of three Federal Correctional
Institutions (FCI) and partial funding for a fourth FCI. Finally,
funding remainder for the last facility will be requested in fiscal
year 2000 to accommodate the space requirements for the D.C. sentenced
felon inmates in accordance with the D.C. Revitalization Act.
In 1998, the BOP plans to transfer into BOP custody the majority of
female D.C. sentenced felons. To date, 116 female D.C. sentenced felons
have been transferred into BOP custody, and procedures have been put in
place so all newly-sentenced female D.C. Code violators will be
designated directly to BOP custody. The BOP is currently reviewing
minimum security male D.C. sentenced felons in preparation for their
transfer into BOP custody. The projected movement of D.C. DOC inmates
needing mental health, medical/surgical care is targeted for 1999.
Absorption of higher security level D.C. inmates is projected for
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 as additional BOP capacity
(construction funded in 1998) is activated.
Question. What are the Bureau's criteria for locating these new
prisons?
Answer. The BOP is actively evaluating potential sites within 500
miles of the District. The BOP may need to begin the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process in numerous locations to ensure four
acceptable sites since the EIS process is preliminary and does not
always result in prison construction. To date, siting efforts have been
concentrated in South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. In December of 1997, the BOP began
the EIS process for a medium security prison in Gilmer County, West
Virginia. In addition, the BOP is proceeding with the draft EIS process
for sites in Ohio/Tyler and Preston counties, West Virginia, and
obtaining additional technical information to go forward in the EIS
process on sites in South Carolina, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. The BOP
plans to finish each EIS related to D.C. capacity this year.
Further, the BOP plans to build a medium security facility at its
existing Petersburg, Virginia, location, and a high security facility
at its Coleman, Florida, location. While the Florida location is
outside the 500-mile radius, the BOP can proceed quickly with this
project because the EIS process completed for the existing institutions
addressed the possibility of adding an additional facility at a later
date. The BOP would then be able to transfer BOP inmates to Coleman and
subsequently place D.C. sentenced felons in the approximately 30
existing BOP facilities that are within the 500-mile radius.
The following criteria represent the features of an ideal site for
potential construction of a new institution:
The site should:
--include a minimum of 250 acres of relatively flat land of
reasonable configuration (i.e. with roughly equal length and
width) and with adequate buffers along the boundaries;
--be available at minimal cost to the government and include both
surface and mineral rights;
--be free from environmental difficulties, including protected
``wetland areas'', significant archaeological or historic
resources, habitats of threatened or endangered species,
farmland preservation areas and prime agricultural land. It
should not be located within a flood plain area;
--be located within 50 miles of a large population center to ensure
the availability of community resources for the facility, such
as staff, housing, goods and services, etc.;
--have adequate public utility services to the site;
--have adequate fire protection services nearby, with a public-
service fire company preferred;
--have an accredited full service hospital recognized and licensed by
the state within one hour's driving time;
--be within close proximity to interstate highway systems and public
transportation, preferably with commercial ground and air
service nearby;
--be within proximity to higher education facilities, with accredited
colleges or universities and a wide variety of technical
schools;
--have community support, including endorsement by local officials
and Members of Congress.
Question. What percentage of these prisoners are going to be housed
by contractor, privatized prisons? Does this use of private prisons
make sense to the Bureau of Prisons?
Answer. A provision in the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Improvement Act of 1997 requires the BOP to house 2,000 D.C.
sentenced felons in private contract facilities by December 31, 1999,
and 50 percent by 2003. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was released on
February 13, 1998 for the housing of approximately 2,200 minimum and
low security D.C. sentenced felons, with responses due on April 1,
1998.
The BOP endorses use of private/contract facilities for minimum and
low security inmates when it serves the best interest of the government
and provides the best placement for an inmate. Over 10 percent of BOP
inmates are housed outside of Federal prison in contract and private
facilities. The five-year privatization demonstration project at the
Taft, California correctional facility mandated by the Congress is
underway and will help the BOP evaluate the potential effectiveness of
privatizing future BOP facilities for low and minimum security inmates.
However, the requirement that 50 percent of D.C. sentenced felons
be housed in private facilities is of concern to the BOP. Nearly two
thirds of the D.C. sentenced felon population are medium and high
security, and the private sector does not have a demonstrated track
record in terms of managing medium and high security institutions. The
BOP has an established effective system of higher security prisons, and
in the interest of public safety as well as that of the inmates,
believes those higher security inmates would be more appropriately
placed in federal prisons.
``winstar''
Question. As I understand it, the Government could lose up to $32
billion if we lose these Winstar cases. Last year this Subcommittee and
the Treasury Subcommittee provided $53 million to support the
Government in this litigation. In fiscal year 1999 your request is
fairly complicated and provides for changes in scoring that require
action by the Banking Committee. Could you describe the Government-wide
budget for Winstar? What is the impact if the Banking Committees do not
pass the Administration's proposed legislation?
Answer. There are 130 Winstar suits which encompass over one
billion pages of government documents, 60 opposing counsel representing
numerous financial institutions, and damage claims estimated to be in
the vicinity of $20 to 30 billion. The genesis of this litigation is
the savings and loan crisis of the 1980's. The ensuing bailout cost
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Ultimately, necessary banking
reforms were enacted and implemented. The Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) imposed new
capitalization standards. It is the imposition of those standards and
the alleged damages that lie at the heart of the Winstar claims.
Many of the Winstar claims are without merit, and others are
grossly overstated. Our responsibility is to determine the factual
basis of the claims and enable the court to distinguish legitimate
claims from those that have been wildly exaggerated. Without the
requisite investment in information processing, expert analysis and
attorney time, there would be no way to identify and eliminate
unwarranted claims. The losses which are likely to result, should
funding be withheld, could well wipe out the budget surplus projected
for 1999. We believe that the American public would be appalled if, in
addition to the bailout of the 1980's, billions more were to be doled
out without a full analysis of the claims to winnow out those that are
inflated or meritless.
Winstar suits are unprecedented with respect to their size and
complexity. Glendale, the first case activated, has been in trial for
13 months. When the trial concludes in April, 30 additional suits will
be activated, unleashing the one of the most massive discovery efforts
ever undertaken. Simultaneously, the Statesman trial will begin and
pretrial activities will intensify for the 12 priority cases scheduled
to follow Statesman. Next fiscal year will be more arduous--the
priority cases will go to trial at the rate of two per month, discovery
efforts will continue, and an additional 30 cases will be activated.
Information processing, expert analysis, pre-trial and trial activity
will reach staggering proportions. The budget estimates, attached,
reflect the substantial investment that has been made and that will
continue to be required to respond to court mandates.
Given the substantial costs associated with Winstar, senior
officials of the Department of Justice and other interested agencies
are committed to exploring all reasonable settlement possibilities. At
the same time, as stated earlier, we are convinced that the plaintiffs'
claims are without any merit in some cases and are vastly overstated in
others. Our experts, including a Nobel Laureate economist, concur in
our assessment of the claims. Settlements fair to both sides can be
achieved only if we have resources sufficient to analyze the cases and
to defend against inflated and unreasonable demands.
As shown in the attached chart, $26,100,000 of the 1997 costs were
reimbursable out of the FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF). For 1998, the
Appropriations Act for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service and
the Executive Office of the President, authorizes another $33,700,000
for reimbursement from the FRF (Public Law 105-61). This funding has
been scored against the discretionary ceiling set for Treasury-General
Government appropriations--reducing the amount of spending authority
for agencies funded under this umbrella.
The Treasury-General Government subcommittee staff has stated that
further reimbursements beyond those authorized this year will not be
approved, should that reimbursement authority count against the
subcommittee's discretionary ceiling. In fact, Section 632 of the
Conference Report on the 1998 Treasury-General Government
Appropriations Act states that when the conferees agreed to include a
provision concerning the FRF reimbursement to Justice they,
``expect[ed] that OMB will submit, with the fiscal year 1999 budget
request, language which would make this provision permanent law.''
The FRF was created by FIRREA to wind up the affairs of the defunct
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The FRF itself
is a mandatory account. Resolution of Winstar claims is, essentially,
the final phase of efforts to wind up the affairs of the FSLIC and
related banking agencies. We therefore believe that the FRF continues
to be the logical source of funding for the bulk of the Winstar-related
expenses. We also believe that because the damage claims are the direct
result of agency actions that were required by FIRREA, that the budget
for this litigation should be scored as mandatory. An Administration
proposal designed to authorize mandatory funding is forthcoming.
Should the banking committees fail to pass legislation which would
authorize mandatory FRF funding, the need would have to be met out of
either the discretionary resources of the Treasury-General Government
subcommittees or the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittees. Should one
or the other of the committees agree to funding the Winstar defense,
the impact will fall largely to the other discretionary programs which
must be cut to stay within budgetary ceilings. Should both committees
fail to provide requisite funding, the government will be without the
means to access, analyze and present information required to determine
the legitimacy of the claims. This would set the stage for unfavorable
judgments and settlements, which, as stated above, could translate into
treasury payouts of sufficient size to wipe out projected budget
surpluses for 1999 and future years.
SUMMARY OF DOJ WINSTAR RESOURCES--DIRECT AND REIMBURSED
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 Base 1999 Inc 1999 Req
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSLIC Resolution Fund (FRF):
Personnel............................................ $4,109 $133 ......... ......... .........
Automated Litigation Support......................... 11,230 19,564 ......... $35,324 $35,324
Litigation Consultants............................... 10,342 13,000 ......... 13,764 13,764
Transcripts and Misc................................. 419 1,003 ......... 2,104 2,104
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FRF...................................... 26,100 33,700 ......... 51,192 51,192
======================================================
General Legal Activities (GLA):
Personnel............................................ ......... 5,483 $6,056 1,725 7,781
Automated Litigation Support......................... ......... 1,000 1,000 3,764 4,764
Litigation Consultants............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
Transcripts and Misc................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, GLA...................................... ......... 6,483 7,056 5,489 12,545
======================================================
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses........................... 6,300 4,000 ......... 10,000 10,000
------------------------------------------------------
Total Appropriations............................... 32,400 44,183 7,056 66,681 73,737
======================================================
Available from Prior Year(s)............................. 12,350 8,814 ......... ......... .........
======================================================
Grand Total........................................ 44,750 52,997 7,056 66,681 73,737
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
counterdrug initiatives--methamphetamine
Question. Your budget this year supports 100 more DEA agents to
attack methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse. Typically,
when we think of methamphetamine production, we're thinking California.
But the word is that meth labs and meth use are spreading east faster
than you can blink an eye. In fact, in South Carolina, methamphetamine
cases have been on the rise in the last few years and like other states
in our region, we've become victim to traveling motorcycle gangs that
transport meth and portable meth labs into the state.
What efforts are being made to address the spread of
methamphetamine production before this problem gets out of control?
Answer. DEA is addressing the increasing threat posed by illegal
methamphetamine trafficking through several initiatives and
investigative actions directed at the production of methamphetamine;
the control of the chemical precursors used to manufacture
methamphetamine; the international trafficking organizations
(predominantly Mexican based) that control the majority of the illicit
methamphetamine trade; and the growing problem state and local law
enforcement agencies face from the domestic production of
methamphetamine which is causing a drain on police services and is
presenting a public safety threat.
Known on the street by names like ``crank'' and ``speed,''
methamphetamine is a dangerous stimulant, which possesses addictive
qualities similar to those of crack cocaine. According to statistics
from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), the U.S. experienced a 209
percent increase in the number of methamphetamine-related emergency
room episodes between 1990 and 1995. Following a brief drop during the
first half of fiscal year 1996, total methamphetamine episodes
skyrocketed by 71 percent during the second half of the year.
Today, DEA is taking part in more methamphetamine-related arrests
and is seizing more clandestine laboratories per year than ever before
in the agency's 25-year history. Since fiscal year 1993, DEA arrests in
methamphetamine-related investigations have consistently risen.
Methamphetamine arrests increased by 45 percent in one year, rising
from 3,920 in fiscal year 1996 to 5,780 arrests in fiscal year 1997.
During fiscal year 1997, DEA was involved in the seizure of more
methamphetamine laboratories (1,272) than in the three previous fiscal
years combined (combined total equals 1,256).
Until recently, methamphetamine trafficking and production in the
U.S. was controlled by outlaw motorcycle gangs operating independent
drug trafficking networks across the country. Today, although these
gangs continue to distribute methamphetamine, trafficking and
production of this dangerous drug is largely divided between thousands
of small, independent organizations, who run ``mom-and-pop'' labs
capable of small-scale meth production, and the major Mexican syndicate
networks who produce methamphetamine in more sophisticated labs in
Mexico and California. Both groups are producing more methamphetamine
than ever before. However, it is the emergence of the Mexican
syndicates, and their growing domination of methamphetamine production
and distribution in the United States, that has redefined the
methamphetamine problem in this country.
The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the methamphetamine market can
largely be attributed to two factors. First, Mexican organized crime
has established access to enormous quantities of the precursor
ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the international market.
Second, these criminal groups regularly produce unprecedented
quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and Californian
super labs, which is then trafficked to states across the United
States. Today, it is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the available
supply of methamphetamine in the United States is produced by Mexican
organized crime syndicates.
The Amezcua-Contreras Brothers, operating out of Guadalajara, are
the world's largest smugglers of ephedrine and clandestine producers of
methamphetamine. The Amezcua Organization obtains large quantities of
precursor ephedrine through contacts in Thailand and India, which they
then use to make methamphetamine for subsequent distribution to Mexican
trafficking groups operating in major U.S. population centers.
Drug traffickers are adopting increasingly sophisticated methods to
obtain the chemicals needed to produce methamphetamine. In the U.S.,
rogue chemical companies, by willful ignorance and/or criminal intent,
supply precursor and essential chemicals to methamphetamine producers
on both sides of the border. As evidence in the operations of the
Amezcua Organization, many Mexican trafficking groups are obtaining
their chemicals from sources in Europe, China and India, using a
combination of direct purchases, brokered shipments, and false front
companies.
In recent years, DEA chemical investigations have expanded rapidly
to keep pace with the spread of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse
across the United States. Increasingly, DEA is conducting these
investigations in cooperation with state and local law enforcement. An
example of this cooperation is evidenced in DEA's Special Enforcement
Program Operation Back Track, initiated in February 1997. This
operation targets rogue chemical companies and other independent
operators who distribute enormous quantities of precursor chemicals,
specifically pseudoephedrine, phenylpropanolamine (PPA) and their drug
products, which are then diverted to the illicit manufacture of
controlled substances. The focus of Operation Back Track is directed at
identifying, tracking, disrupting and eliminating chemical sources,
routes, transportation and distribution networks that supply the
production of clandestinely manufactured drugs. During September 1997,
DEA's Phoenix Division, in coordination with the Phoenix Police
Department, Organized Crime Bureau and Vice Unit and other regional law
enforcement agencies, arrested 32 suspects and conducted 25 search
warrants which resulted in the seizure of 1,000,000 pseudoephedrine
tablets and the civil seizure of 18 convenience stores.
Due to methamphetamine's increasing popularity in the West and its
rapid spread eastward, an increasing number of independent trafficking
and production networks have also been established across the country.
These networks feed the habits of customers typically found outside the
Mexican drug syndicates' predominant areas of influence. The
independent networks, which have proliferated in the Midwest, and more
recently on the East Coast, are selling primarily to users in rural
areas, middle class suburbs, and on college campuses. Surging demand
and increased profit margins are driving increased drug production, and
luring more traffickers and chemists into the methamphetamine trade.
Often, a minimal investment of $500 can yield profits as high as $4,000
to $18,000.
Fifty percent of the clandestine labs seized by DEA in fiscal year
1997 were located in the Midwest. The majority of these labs were of
the ``mom and pop'' variety, typically producing anywhere from two/
three ounces to a pound of methamphetamine. In the Midwest, states like
Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, which four years ago experienced
negligible clandestine laboratory activity, have seen clandestine
laboratories proliferate. Just last month, DEA, in cooperation with
state and local law enforcement, seized its first major clandestine
methamphetamine laboratory in the city of St. Louis. In fiscal year
1997, DEA seized a total of 295 clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories in Missouri, over 100 more labs than in any other state in
the United States.
The illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in smaller, ``mom and
pop'' operations can take place anywhere the operator can set up
laboratory equipment to synthesize the product (e.g., motel rooms,
apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a neighbor's house,
etc.). The caustic, flammable and explosive chemicals required by
``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the lives of not only the
criminals, but innocent bystanders as well. Clandestine laboratories
are so dangerous that many are not found by law enforcement, but by
fire and rescue personnel after they have caught fire or exploded.
These laboratories can prove extremely dangerous to untrained police,
fire and rescue personnel.
Since many clandestine laboratories (particularly those managed by
``home grown'' trafficking networks) are found in the cook's house,
they frequently place their own children at risk. In April 1997, a
clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in New Mexico exploded,
destroying a house trailer and killing the laboratory operator. The
explosion was so severe that it blew out the windows in adjacent
trailers.
The potential environmental damage caused by one clandestine
laboratory can place an entire community at risk. As if the risk of
explosion and fire were not enough, these same toxic chemical
substances, such as benzene, ethanol, hydriodic acid and red
phosphorous, generate hazardous chemical by-products once the
manufacturing process is complete. Careless operators typically dump
their acidic ``sludge'' on the ground, in nearby streams and lakes, or
in local sewage systems and septic tanks. Some simply bury the
hazardous material in their back yards, allowing the dangerous waste to
be absorbed by the soil and into natural water systems.
Because of the dangers associated with these laboratories, close
cooperation with state and local law enforcement is essential. As has
been previously indicated, many of these volatile labs are first
encountered by law enforcement personnel in smaller cities and towns
across the United States. In many cases, these officers do not have the
requisite clandestine laboratory safety certification training, thereby
increasing their chance of serious injury. In an effort to diminish the
risks associated with clandestine laboratory encounters, DEA continues
to work closely with state and local law enforcement personnel across
the country to ensure the provision of necessary clandestine laboratory
investigative and safety training. To date, DEA has provided
clandestine laboratory training to over 2,000 state and local officers
across the United States. With additional funding provided to the
agency in fiscal year 1998 through the Community Oriented Police
Services (COPS) program, DEA anticipates training an additional 1,600
state and local officers over the next two years.
Today, states as far east as Georgia, and Kentucky are also
beginning to see the effects of growing methamphetamine production and
distribution. In August 1997, DEA, in cooperation with the FBI and the
Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force, arrested Mexican national Enrique
Ochoa-Montanez and seized approximately 35 pounds of methamphetamine
and $14,000 in cash from a hotel in northern Kentucky. In December
1997, DEA's Atlanta Field Division was involved in the seizure of 10
pounds of methamphetamine being shipped via Federal Express from
California, Texas and Mexico. The methamphetamine seized was linked to
the drug trafficking operations of the Amezcua-Contreras Organization.
Just last month, DEA agents, again in cooperation with state and
local law enforcement, arrested four people and seized 25 pounds of
methamphetamine in Marietta, Georgia. This seizure--totaling a half a
million dollars worth of methamphetamine--had been manufactured in
Mexico and was intended for distribution in the Atlanta area. The
significant rise in methamphetamine use and abuse in Atlanta has caused
the drug to replace cocaine as the city's number one drug of choice.
As in other areas of the Eastern U.S., methamphetamine trafficking
and abuse are rising in South Carolina. Distribution is now associated
with Mexican organizations as well as traditional groups such as
motorcycle gangs and truckers. There has been an increase in
methamphetamine distribution in South Carolina through the U.S. Mail
and parcel services. Methamphetamine in state is currently selling in
the range of $1,000 to $1,500 per pound.
In recent months, DEA offices in South Carolina have been involved
in two significant methamphetamine cases. The first case, initiated by
our Florence Resident Office, surrounded the activities of a member of
the Pagans Outlaw Motorcycle gang who operated a mobile clandestine
methamphetamine laboratory that was capable of producing multi-pound
quantities of methamphetamine. The investigation led to the seizure of
a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory being operated in a hotel room
in Myrtle Beach during Bikers Week. The defendant in this case was
identified as the chemist and at his arrest he was in possession of a
.40 caliber pistol. He was charged with creating a substantial risk to
human life due to the amount of chemicals found at the clan lab site,
and the manufacturing of a controlled substance. The defendant was
ultimately found guilty and is currently facing a life sentence.
The second case, initiated by our Greenville Resident Office,
involved a group of Mexican nationals that established themselves in
the Greenwood area and were engaged in the wholesale distribution of
large quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine. Telephone toll
analysis revealed communication was ongoing with other known Mexican
traffickers throughout the United States. Methamphetamine being
produced in labs in California, was being driven into the state by
tractor trailer for delivery to the Greenwood area. This organization
deliberately picked a rural area of the state and an area where no law
enforcement personnel spoke Spanish. To date, a total of three
defendants have been arrested in this case and 880 grams of
methamphetamine have been seized.
DEA has been aggressively addressing the growth of the
methamphetamine trade across the U.S. through its Methamphetamine
Enforcement Initiative. This initiative has provided an integrated and
coordinated strategy in support of the National Drug Control Strategy,
the National Methamphetamine Strategy, and the Department of Justice
Methamphetamine strategy. It focuses our intelligence and enforcement
efforts against Mexican drug trafficking organizations, independent
domestic methamphetamine traffickers, and rogue chemical companies
responsible for the smuggling, production, and distribution of
methamphetamine in the United States. Through our demand reduction
efforts, the training of state and local law enforcement officers and
our major investigative efforts, including a recent investigation
entitled Operation META, we are committed to ensuring that
methamphetamine does not become the ``crack'' cocaine of the 1990's. A
brief chronology of DEA's methamphetamine-related actions and
accomplishments are summarized below.
Fiscal year 1995
In fiscal year 1995, DEA devoted almost 10 percent more work hours
to methamphetamine investigations than in 1994. The result was 2,600
arrests, 20 percent increase over 1994 figures. DEA was also involved
in the seizure of 327 methamphetamine laboratories across the U.S.,
including 38 tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from three rogue
chemical companies.
Fiscal year 1996
In fiscal year 1996, DEA sponsored the first annual Methamphetamine
Conference, which brought together federal, state and local law
enforcement officers and raised national awareness about the growing
methamphetamine problem. DEA's Demand Reduction Section, in cooperation
with the American Council for Drug Education, produced a follow-up
methamphetamine awareness pamphlet for distribution to the public-at-
large.
In April 1996, DEA established a Special Enforcement Program,
Operation Velocity, to target significant domestic methamphetamine
organizations and independent traffickers and chemists involved in the
production of methamphetamine and/or the distribution of precursor
chemicals in the United States.
In fiscal year 1996, DEA made a total of 3,920 methamphetamine-
related arrests and seized 903 clandestine laboratories, a 220 percent
increase over 1995. DEA also conducted seven, one-week state and local
clandestine laboratory certification schools, providing training for
approximately 247 state and local participants nationwide.
Fiscal year 1997
In fiscal year 1997, DEA expanded its overall interdiction and
chemical control efforts along the southwest border through an
enhancement of 54 special agents for the southwest border Initiative.
In June 1997, DEA established a Special Operations Section to target
Mexican methamphetamine command and control operations.
DEA's Operation META demonstrated the extensive involvement of the
major Mexican trafficking groups in the U.S. methamphetamine trade.
This multi-agency wiretap investigation targeted traffickers associated
with the Amezcua brothers' methamphetamine trafficking organization, a
syndicate which, as previously indicated, supplies its U.S. cells with
methamphetamine, precursor chemicals, and cocaine.
Amezcua cells manufactured methamphetamine in Los Angeles. During
the META raids, operating methamphetamine labs were discovered near a
day-care center and in an equestrian center where riding lessons were
being conducted. This is typical of the disregard organized crime
syndicates have for the safety and well-being of the American public.
The labs discovered were capable of producing more than 300 pounds of
methamphetamine. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted as
part of DEA's Southwest Border Strategy, resulted in more than 100 key
arrests of methamphetamine traffickers operating in the U.S.
In 1997, DEA conducted 23 one-week clandestine laboratory
investigative and safety training classes for state and local law
enforcement officers at sites in San Diego, California, Overland Park,
Kansas, and at the FBI Academy/Camp Upshur in Quantico, Virginia. A
total of 914 state and local officers were trained. A one-time transfer
of funds from ONDCP allowed DEA to provide much needed clandestine
laboratory safety equipment (e.g., air monitors, air purified
respirators, fire resistant clothing, etc.) to each state and local
officer completing the course.
DEA produced and distributed nationwide a new public awareness
videotape entitled ``Methamphetamine--Trail of Violence.'' DEA also
produced and distributed clandestine laboratory awareness posters and
two videotapes, one which details and illustrates the chemicals found
in the new ``Nazi'' formula labs, and another called ``Chemical Time
Bombs,'' to clandestine laboratory enforcement teams throughout the
U.S. In 1996 and 1997, several DEA field divisions, including the St.
Louis Field Division, held conferences to educate state and local
authorities on the growth and hazards associated with methamphetamine
trafficking, production and abuse in the United States.
In 1997, DEA made a total of 5,780 arrests and seized 1,366
methamphetamine laboratories. The agency also initiated a total of
3,209 methamphetamine cases and seized 1,175 kilograms of
methamphetamine and amphetamine. Operation Velocity itself resulted in
the arrest of 222 significant violators and $2.5 million in seized
trafficker assets.
Fiscal year 1998
DEA received a resource enhancement of 60 special agents and
$11.046 million to execute a three-pronged approach for attacking
methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse in the United States.
This approach entails: (1) increased enforcement to target major
methamphetamine trafficking organizations; (2) hazardous waste removal
and laboratory services; and (3) clandestine laboratory training to DEA
personnel and state, local and foreign law enforcement organizations.
Along with the 54 DEA special agents deployed for methamphetamine
enforcement nationwide, an additional 6 special agents were allocated
to DEA's Office of Training to conduct state and local clandestine
laboratory certification training.
Because of the hazardous nature of the waste produced, clandestine
laboratory sites require professional, costly cleanup services. In
1998, the COPS program provided DEA with a one-time reimbursement of
$9.5 million for state and local clandestine laboratory cleanup and
training. This funding included a total of $5 million for state and
local clandestine cleanup operations and $4.5 million for clandestine
laboratory training for state and local officers.
Fiscal year 1999
Building on the Southwest Border Initiative and the National
Methamphetamine Strategy, DEA is requesting additional resources to
implement a comprehensive approach for targeting and investigating
methamphetamine trafficking and production. This approach will increase
domestic enforcement, enhance chemical control, expand intelligence
efforts, and improve environmental protection. The request includes an
enhancement of 100 special agents to target methamphetamine trafficking
in emerging markets and/or producer states.
Question. Are your DEA agents and/or funds being made available for
states like South Carolina, that aren't consumed yet with a
methamphetamine problem, but also don't want to see it balloon into
something uncontrollable?
Answer. DEA is very concerned about the continuing spread of
methamphetamine across the United States, including to areas in the
Midwest and more recently, states along the East Coast. We are
continuing to work diligently with our federal, state and local
counterparts to address the methamphetamine problem before it reaches
the epidemic proportions that the crack cocaine crisis did in the late
1980's and early 1990's.
As previously indicated, DEA's 1998 appropriation included a total
of 60 special agents and $11.046 million to address the growth and
spread of domestic methamphetamine trafficking across the United
States. Out of this allocation, DEA's Atlanta Field Division Office,
(which includes DEA offices in South Carolina), received a total of 4
special agents.
DEA currently has a total of 26 special agents on-board in the
state of South Carolina. DEA also has four state and local task forces
operating in state, including task forces in Charleston (funded and
operating since 1991), Greenville (Provisional and operating since
1990), Columbia (Provisional and operating since 1997), and Florence
(Provisional and operating since 1991).
There is one special agent in each of the above Resident Offices
that house these task forces, that is clan lab certified. There are
currently no task force officers that are clan lab certified; however,
students in DEA's two week Basic Narcotic School are provided with four
hours of basic instruction on clan labs and methamphetamine
investigations. One such school is provided in South Carolina each year
with approximately 40 to 45 officers attending.
During 1997, 37 clandestine laboratories were seized in the Atlanta
Division, only one of which (Myrtle Beach case referred to earlier in
the text) was a methamphetamine lab originating in South Carolina. The
Atlanta Division Office has established a clan lab enforcement group
that is available to assist other offices throughout the division when
a clandestine laboratory is encountered.
reorganizing ins
Question. I've heard that Chairman Rogers on the House side wants
to abolish the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and move
its functions into the Department of Labor, Department of State, and
retain part in Justice. Have you reviewed this issue. What is your view
General Reno?
Answer. The Administration's restructure proposal was transmitted
to the Hill on March 31, 1996. The plan took into consideration the
concerns of the Congress and the Commission on Immigration Reform (CIR)
with respect to the current management of immigration responsibilities.
The INS has as its single mission the effective execution of
immigration and naturalization laws of this country. This single
mission has two inseparable and complementary functions--services and
enforcement.
The White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC), Office of Management
and Budget, in consultation with the Departments of Labor and State,
and the Department's own leadership--which has included my direct
personal involvement--and the leadership of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service have worked extensively in designing the
restructuring plan. In addition, the Department has contracted with the
consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton for assistance in designing
and operationalizing the INS restructuring plan.
Question. Some have suggested that the problem is that INS has two
competing missions--the border patrol and immigration inspectors are
tasked with keeping aliens out, while the naturalization part of the
agency is tasked with facilitating legal immigration.
Have you looked at retaining all INS functions within the Justice
Department, but separating enforcement and naturalization activities
into separate organizations?
Answer. The Department and Booz-Allen have examined alternative
reorganization proposals for the INS--including those by external
sources--such as the CIR proposal and the proposal provided in
Congressman Reyes' bill.
The Administration's restructuring plan recognizes that one agency,
INS, should continue to perform the interrelated enforcement and
service functions. Consistent with the Administration's plan, the
Department is focusing on a design structure that upholds the
organizational integrity of the INS, while identifying additional
changes that will improve INS' performance of enforcement and service
functions. The Department is not considering separating INS' existing
enforcement and service functions into separate Department of Justice
(DOJ) components.
community prosecuting
Question. I've been told that your budget includes a new $50
million initiative for a Community Prosecutors Program that will make
discretionary grants to state and local prosecutors. Will this operate
like the COPS on the Beat program?
Answer. Of the $50 million request, at least $40 million will be
available to hire prosecutors. This will be a discretionary grant
program that may well operate much like the COPS program. Grants are
anticipated to last an average of three years and would pay a maximum
of 75 percent of costs, with the Federal share declining over the life
of the grant. The remaining 20 percent, or $10 million, will be
available for the following purposes: developing and implementing
innovative programs that permit members of the community in assisting
prosecutors in crime control and prevention; increasing prosecutors'
involvement in community activities focused on crime control and
prevention; developing and establishing a new administrative and
management systems to facilitate the adoption of community-oriented
prosecution; and developing and implementing innovative, community-
based programs that include the courts and corrections systems.
Question. This seems like a good policy to have local prosecutors
interact directly with members of the community, but can this be
supported in the State and local block grants?
Answer. Technically Local Law Enforcement Black Grant (LLEBG) funds
may be used to hire prosecutors and fund prevention efforts. However,
there are several problems with doing so:
--prosecutors are primary county employees and the bulk of LLEBG
funds go to cities;
--in 1996 and 1997, jurisdictions have already expressed that their
primary needs are equipment, police officers and police
overtime, in that order;
--even if localities were so inclined, funding levels are too small,
particularly at the local level, to hire even one prosecutor,
much less fund any kind of program;
--the central theme and intent of this program is to change the
culture at the local level to buy into the concept of community
justice and create strong coalitions among the local
organizations/groups, which will then impact crime. Most of
what will occur will be training and technical assistance
toward this end. These kinds of activities cannot be funded
through the LLEBG.
Question. In your testimony, you say this Community Prosecuting has
worked on a small-scale level and you want the opportunity to try this
nationally. Now would the $50 million go towards a comprehensive,
national strategy that would be seen in hundreds of communities
throughout the country, or would you limit the program to targeted
areas?
Answer. The intent is, indeed, to create a comprehensive strategy
that encourages and supports prosecutors and local communities across
the country to work together to fight crime in their neighborhoods.
national advocacy center
Question. The Department of Justice is going to be opening the
National Advocacy Center in a short time, and will finally have a
center of excellence to train Assistant U.S. Attorneys and State and
Local prosecutors together.
Two weeks ago we learned that the Department of Justice has been
funding the Federal Trade Commission to train State prosecutors around
the country in combatting telemarketing scams.
General Reno, clearly marketing scams are a real law enforcement
challenge that requires cooperation between our Federal and local
prosecutors. Seems to me we should take advantage of the synergy
produced by the National Advocacy Center and provide this training at
the new facility.
Could you please look into that and see if we can set up such a
training course at the Advocacy Center?
Answer. The National District Attorneys Advocacy Center (NDAAC)
will be part of the National Advocacy Center currently under
construction in Columbia, South Carolina. Each year, at currently
anticipated resource levels, the NDAAC will provide training to
approximately 2,000 local prosecutors who need instruction in specific
prosecutorial skills. However, there are small prosecutor offices that
cannot send their limited staff to the National Center for extended
training. For these offices, short duration training at regional
locations, possibly dealing with state-specific issues, will continue
to be the most responsive approach. Also, with a potential training
pool of over 65,000 local prosecutors, the currently anticipated
capacity of the NDAAC alone cannot meet the requirements of the
potential student population at the South Carolina location.
The recently held Telemarketing Scams courses were conducted as a
joint effort by the American Prosecutors Research Institute and the
National Association of Attorneys General. Two training sessions were
planned for local prosecutors and assistant attorneys general. This
course can be added to the curriculum of the NDAAC for presentation as
demand warrants.
communications assistance for law enforcement act [calea]
Question. I have a number of questions that Senator Leahy, the
Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, has asked that we submit
regarding the implementation of the Communications Assistance to Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA).
As you know, last year we did not provide additional funding for
CALEA since prior year funding had not been spent and the
communications industry and the FBI had not reached agreement on
capability and capacity requirements for court-ordered wiretaps in a
digital telecommunications environment.
It still appears to me that the FBI and the industry have not
progressed very far. What is the status of the Justice Department's
negotiations with industry?
Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the industry have been
discussing the implementation of CALEA on many fronts. The primary
objective of these discussions has been to reach consensus with regard
to implementation of CALEA. A committee was formed last summer
consisting of representatives from the telecommunications industry and
law enforcement to resolve the differences that existed with the
industry's proposed standard. A committee was formed following a
meeting between the Attorney General and Larry Babbio, Vice Chairman of
Bell Atlantic Corporation.
As recently as February 23, 1998, the DOJ put forth a proposal that
consisted of the following elements: (1) the Telecommunications Carrier
Compliance Fund (TCCF) would be used to pay for the development of
solutions for all switching platforms in existence prior to January 1,
1995; (2) with regard to deployment costs, the TCCF would be used to
pay for all deployment costs for specific switches in place before
January 1, 1995. Within this framework, any switching platforms in
existence prior to January 1, 1995 for which the Government does not
fund solution development would be deemed in compliance until such time
as the Government does fund development; (3) the Government would be
willing to share deployment costs with industry for specific switches
installed or deployed between January 1, 1995 and October 25, 1998,
even though the Government is not statutorily obligated to reimburse
those costs; and (4) law enforcement would also forbear seeking
enforcement actions for a reasonable period (a period that would
coincide with manufacturer development timelines) after the October 25,
1998 compliance date, thereby allowing the industry a reasonable period
in which to deploy solutions.
On February 25, 1998, the industry rejected all of the FBI's
proposal. On March 6, 1998, leaders of the telecommunications industry,
Attorney General Reno and Director Freeh met in an attempt to reach a
negotiated agreement. The meeting concluded with both industry and law
enforcement committing to working together intensively and
cooperatively for the next 60 days. Industry and law enforcement will
have the following objectives: (1) assess the technical feasibility of
developing solutions which fully meet law enforcement requirements; (2)
clarify the financial implications of developing solutions which fully
meet law enforcement requirements; and (3) develop corresponding CALEA
solution deployment timelines. On March 27, 1998, the DOJ and the FBI
filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
opposing the interim standard adopted by the telecommunications
industry. The interim standard is considered deficient by the law
enforcement community because law enforcement believes it fails to meet
all the capability requirements mandated by CALEA and the underlying
Federal electronic surveillance statutes. It is hoped that the FCC will
rule on the technical standard in an expedited manner.
Question. We have heard rumors that the FBI is holding out the
possibility that it will seek funding in excess of the $500 million
authorization if the communications industry will sign on to its
capacity and capability requirements. Is there anything to that rumor
or are you committed to staying within budget for this subsidy program?
Answer. Currently, the FBI has no plans to request that the current
authorization of $500 million be increased.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
calea
Question. We have less than a year before the October 25, 1998
deadline for telecommunications carriers to be in compliance with the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
Given the current state of CALEA implementation, with no final
capacity notice, a disputed industry capability standard in place, and
no final switch-based or network-based solution deployed, please tell
me how you expect telecommunications carriers to meet the October 25,
1998 compliance date?
Answer. CALEA turned out to be a far more significant and difficult
task than the Attorney General and the FBI had originally anticipated
as many difficult technological as well as implementation issues needed
to be understood and addressed. However, the assistance capability
requirements have been known for some time. In fact, at one point in
1995, the industry's draft standard did include all of law
enforcement's technical requirements.
It was only after the industry began to dismiss a portion of those
requirements that law enforcement recognized that some important
evidentiary requirements would be absent from the standard and hence
absent from any solution developed using the standard as its base. The
industry's removal of these key requirements set a process in motion
that recently concluded with the Department of Justice (DOJ)'s legal
decision that nine ``punch list'' missing capabilities were required by
CALEA and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes. The
legislation recognizes that even in the absence of a standard, the
industry must provide the assistance capability requirements of CALEA.
The FBI recognizes the difficulties with the implementation of
CALEA and has agreed to support industry applications for extensions of
time afforded them within the legislation contingent on the industry
providing certain information to the FBI pertaining to electronic
surveillance solution development and deployment schedules. The FBI
will support the industry's good faith effort in moving toward a
solution consistent with law enforcement requirements.
With regard to capacity, the FBI does not believe that compliance
with the section 103 assistance capability requirements by October 25,
1998 should be tied to, or delayed pending the issuance of the Final
Notice of Capacity. A manufacturer's ability to develop solutions to
meet the section 103 assistance capability requirements does not depend
upon the final articulation of the capacity requirements. Shortly after
the publication of the Second Notice of Capacity in January 1997, the
FBI advised the industry that the capacity numbers in the Final Notice
of Capacity would not change from those set forth in the Second Notice
of Capacity.
Question. Should the deadline for compliance with the capability
requirements be delayed? If not, please explain why?
Answer. No, the deadline for compliance with the capability
requirements should not be delayed. Law enforcement has been consulting
with the industry in an effort to explain its evidentiary requirements
since the initiation of standards-setting efforts in 1995. While the
FBI has agreed to support applications for extensions of the compliance
date before the FCC based on good faith efforts of industry, the FBI
does not believe blanket extensions are justified.
Furthermore, CALEA contains provisions to accommodate a need to
extend the compliance date. Section 107 of the legislation clearly
states that: ``A telecommunications carrier proposing to install or
deploy, or having installed or deployed, any equipment, facility, or
service prior to the effective date of section 103 may petition the
Commission for one or more extensions of the deadline for complying
with the assistance capability requirements * * *.''
The DOJ and the FBI share your frustration with the pace of CALEA's
implementation. Few could have foreseen that a solution would not be
available eight months prior to the October 25, 1998 compliance date
for capability, particularly since CALEA specifically requires
capability compliance by that date regardless of whether or not a
standard has been adopted. However, in recognizing that the compliance
date is fast approaching and a solution is not yet commercially
available, the Government offered industry a new direction in a January
22, 1998 letter from the Attorney General to members of the
telecommunications industry.
As stated in the January 22, 1998 letter, and further clarified in
a February 3, 1998 letter from Stephen R. Colgate, Assistant Attorney
General for Administration, in those situations where a carrier can
foresee that they are unable to meet the October 25, 1998 deadline
because a manufacturer has yet to develop a solution, the Attorney
General is prepared to forbear from any enforcement action against that
carrier, and support a carrier's petition to the FCC for an extension
of the compliance date. In return, the Attorney General would require
that each manufacturer continue good faith efforts to develop a
solution with functionality required by CALEA as defined by law
enforcement and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes, and
provide a reasonable and fair development schedule which would include
verifiable milestones.
Question. Why has the FBI not yet petitioned the FCC over the
standard? Do you plan to file such a petition and, if so, what are you
waiting for?
Answer. In December 1997, the telecommunications industry adopted
an interim standard (J-STD-025) that does not contain nine punch list
capabilities found by the Department of Justice to be required by
CALEA. The DOJ and the FBI believe that this standard is deficient
because it does not include these assistance capabilities. If the
standard is not modified, the safe harbor that has been created by the
passage of the deficient interim standard will be allowed to continue.
The result will be the inability of law enforcement to conduct
effective electronic surveillance.
It is important to note that the FBI, as a representative of all
Federal, state and local law enforcement, requires a consensus among
its members in order to file a petition that would be representative of
the entire law enforcement community.
The FBI principally coordinates CALEA implementation actions
through the Law Enforcement Technical Forum (LETF) in which law
enforcement officials from across the country express their views on
CALEA matters, including the industry's J-STD-025 interim standard. A
LETF meeting was held on January 22, 1998, to discuss the interim
standard. Also, after internal analysis, the FBI requested a DOJ review
of the ``punch list'' capabilities. That opinion was rendered on
January 23, 1998. Moreover, a meeting was held on February 24, 1998
with law enforcement associations including the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association of
Attorneys General (NAAG), and the National Technical Investigators
Association (NATIA) to discuss the interim standard. On March 27, 1998,
the DOJ and FBI filed a petition with the FCC opposing the interim
standard adopted by the telecommunications industry.
Question. The FBI has repeatedly noted that the absence of a
standard does not relieve industry from meeting the statutory deadline
for capability compliance. In fact, CALEA does not let carriers off the
hook if no standard is implemented. Yet, the Department is proposing to
issue letters of forbearance to carriers excusing them from meeting the
compliance deadline, if they agree to some or all of the FBI's ``punch
list'' items, which carriers contend are not required under CALEA. What
provisions in CALEA authorize the Attorney General to grant forbearance
to carriers that cannot meet the October 1998 compliance deadline?
Answer. Section 108 of CALEA sets the conditions under which the
Attorney General is authorized to seek an order enforcing the
legislation. In those instances where carriers and manufacturers are
indeed making good faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, the
Attorney General would reserve the right to seek an enforcement order.
During the course of a January 23, 1998, meeting, the DOJ, the FBI,
and representatives of the telecommunications industry discussed the
conditions under which the DOJ would agree not to pursue enforcement
actions against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with regard to the
CALEA mandate that a carrier meet the assistance capability
requirements pursuant to CALEA section 103 by October 25, 1998, or
against a manufacturer with respect to its obligation under CALEA
section 106(b) to make features or modifications available on a
``reasonably timely basis.'' Industry representatives in attendance at
the January 23, 1998, meeting included representatives from the
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), Personal
Communications Industry Association (PCIA), Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA), United States Telephone Association (USTA), and Bell
Atlantic.
Forbearance would be contingent upon the industry's good faith
efforts to develop a solution that is consistent with law enforcement's
requirements and to commit to a fair and reasonable development
schedule.
Question. It seems that the FBI and DOJ are offering to support
extensions of the compliance date through forbearance letters or at the
FCC only if carriers agree to undertake efforts to develop the ``punch
list'' which carriers contend are not required under CALEA. Does CALEA
give the FBI and DOJ authority to condition the granting of extensions
of the compliance deadline?
Answer. Only the FCC may grant extensions of the compliance
deadline. However, the FCC is required to consult with the Attorney
General before granting an extension to a carrier. The Attorney General
can support a carrier's request for extension of the compliance date
based on that carrier's good faith efforts to implement CALEA.
In recognition of the industry's concern over the compliance date,
the Attorney General has offered not to pursue enforcement actions
against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with regard to the CALEA
mandate that a carrier meet the assistance capability requirements by
October 25, 1998, or against a manufacturer with respect to its
obligation under CALEA section 106(b) to make features or modifications
available on a ``reasonably timely basis.''
Forbearance and support for extensions would be contingent upon
industry's good faith efforts to develop a CALEA-compliant solution and
commit to a fair and reasonable development schedule which would
include verifiable milestones.
The DOJ, the FBI and the law enforcement community firmly believe
that the ``punch list'' capabilities must be incorporated into a
solution in order for law enforcement to maintain the integrity of
interceptions and the ability to intercept the same information that it
previously received through traditional methods--that is, before the
advent of advanced telecommunications services and features
necessitated eletronic surveillance efforts to be effected within a
carrier switch or network facilities. After extensive legal analysis,
DOJ has found the ``punch list'' missing capabilities to be within the
scope of CALEA, and vital to law enforcement's ability to meet
evidentiary and minimization requirements required by a court of law.
Question. If carriers seek deadline extensions at the FCC, will the
FBI argue that any extensions should be conditioned on carriers
dropping their objections to the punch list?
Answer. The FBI has agreed to support industry applications for
extensions of time afforded them within the legislation. In return, the
Attorney General expects the manufacturer to continue good faith
efforts to develop a solution consistent with law enforcement's
requirements and commit to a fair and reasonable development schedule
which would include verifiable milestones.
On February 4, 1998, the DOJ sent a letter to industry
representatives delineating the DOJ's determination of the legality of
``punch-list'' missing capabilities. The legal opinion was rendered and
the letter was sent in response to an industry request for
clarification of the legality of the ``punch-list'' missing
capabilities. The DOJ legal opinion clearly stated that nine of the
``punch-list'' capabilities were required by CALEA and the underlying
electronic surveillance statutes.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. Thank you again, Madam Attorney General.
Ms. Reno. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. The subcommittee stands in recess until
Thursday at 10 a.m. when we will hear testimony from the
Secretary of State.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., Tuesday, February 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
February 26.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Campbell, Hollings,
Inouye, and Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary of State
STATEMENT OF MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, SECRETARY OF STATE
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. We will start the hearing of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State of the
Appropriations Committee.
Madam Secretary, we do have a vote starting, two back to
back votes, starting at 11 o'clock. So what I would like to
suggest to the panel, if it is agreeable, and I will leave it
to the panel to decide, is that we waive opening statements and
go right to hearing the Secretary. Hopefully, she can give us a
brief opening statement so we can get right into questions.
I yield to my ranking member for any comments he may have.
Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I welcome
Secretary Albright. I have got a conflicting hearing in the
Commerce Committee at 10:15 and I hope to get back. Madam
Secretary, welcome. Write down the word: ``oceans.''
I started 30 years ago with Tom Pickering. He was then the
Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Environment. Then
most recently you had Tim Wirth, as the Under Secretary, and
now you have nobody. But your Department is trying to hold up
any bill which creates an ocean policy commission. Julius
Stratton some 30 years ago chaired an ocean study, the famous
Stratton Commission, that led to the creation of NOAA. We
really do not have any conflicts with international law. The
problems are local.
The problem is that 85 percent of the people by the year
2000 in this country will live within 50 miles of the coast of
the oceans and the Great Lakes. We passed my Oceans Act
unanimously over here on the Senate side. We are ready to get
it going over on the House side. And, now I've heard rumors
that State Department people are saying, ``Wait, we are the
lead on oceans.''
It is the year of the oceans in the State Department, for
lack of attention frankly. Saying, oh, no, we have got to
change this. We are in charge of ocean policy. And you stay in
charge of all international policy. But within respect to the
coastal zone management, ocean research, El Nino, living marine
resources, the actual two-thirds of the Earth that is affecting
the weather, that we do not pay attention to. The U.S.
Government has got to have a formative study now and an
approach to real issues and problems. So I would appreciate
your help on it.
With respect to Iraq. Sometimes we overdescribe, in my
opinion. Sometimes we lift expectations beyond reality, and
that has occurred here more recently. You have been working
around the clock on an agreement, and I admire you for what you
have done. But what happens is that, in all candor, this
agreement cannot be enforced. You cannot police another man's
country.
It can be enforced if you get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Everybody agrees on that, and nobody has a substitute for it
except Israel. Israel has made it known if they put in one
missile in downtown Tel Aviv, that will be the end of Baghdad,
Saddam, and the whole kit and caboodle. So they get on national
TV and they say, by the way, if you all come in, we are not
going against Israel this time. Somewhat mutually assured
destruction. That policy worked with the Soviets and that,
unless we are going after Saddam himself, has got to be our
policy.
Our friend, Secretary Cohen, gave up the game when he held
that bag of sugar on TV. You can go in there 5 days, you can go
in there 50 days and bomb, and at the end of the 50 days up
comes Saddam on TV with his little bag and says, ha-ha, I am
still here. You yourself have said that, ``Well, if necessary
we will go back in.''
I think that we ought to get down to reality and realize
that from our own experience that you just cannot guarantee
anything unless you get rid of Saddam. We thought we were doing
a good job with UNSCOM. I keep hearing about the integrity of
UNSCOM. The outfit itself has integrity, but the agreement to
be enforced has none whatsoever.
I saw us misled years and years ago by Secretary McNamara,
and he finally wrote a book about it. He was talking about
having them surrounded, Operation Meat Grinder, light at the
end of the tunnel, and everything else. In a similar fashion,
we are overdescribing this thing when we say we are going to
enforce it. It will be a guarantee. It will be serious. And
then in the next breath we say, wait a minute, it might not
work, and we will have to go back in.
Hey, you cannot waste American personnel, GI's, men, and
women on the kind of policy that does not get the job done. We
made a mistake back in Desert Storm. We should have gone in and
finished the job. We all know that now. And going in is the
only way to enforce this so-called policy because it is
unenforceable otherwise. Even in our own country, the FBI just
thought they had anthrax out in Nevada.
So I understand that it is the policy that you are in
charge of. When we go around and we talk categorically about
what we are going to do, we say we are the one superpower and
it is our responsibility. And no, we do not need the United
Nations, but yet it is the U.N. resolutions that we are
enforcing, and we end up with everybody in the neighborhood
against us--the majority of the Security Council against us.
That is bad policy and that worries me. As we move into this
thing, the ultimate policy in the Mideast is whether or not we
can get a peace treaty now with Arafat of any kind for Israel
during the remainder of President Clinton's term.
Now I did not mean to go that long, but I have to, because
unfortunately, I do not get much chance to see the Secretary. I
do appreciate it, and welcome you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
I notice we have been joined by the chairman of the full
committee and wondered if, Senator Stevens, did you wish to
make any opening statement?
Senator Stevens. No; I will abide by your request and wait.
Senator Gregg. Then we turn to you, Madam Secretary. I
appreciate your coming, and appreciate your time, and look
forward to hearing what you have to say.
Summary statement
Secretary Albright. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
very glad to be here again with you and the members of the
subcommittee and to present the President's 1999 budget
request. I will not read my written statement, but I encourage
you to look it over because it deals with an awful lot of vital
issues in parts of the world that I cannot include in my oral
statement today and honor your time. But before discussing the
specific accounts, Mr. Chairman, let me just review a couple of
front burner foreign policy issues. Clearly, Iraq is one of
them. I will not respond to everything that Senator Hollings
said, but I will make a couple of comments and then, obviously,
I think you all will have questions.
First, we have made efforts through diplomacy backed by the
threat of force to see that Iraq complies with its obligations
to the world community, and that effort is going on. On
Tuesday, the Security Council was briefed by the Secretary
General on the agreement, and the agreement does promise
immediate and unrestricted access to U.N. inspectors to sites
in Iraq, including those from which they had been previously
excluded. Now I do think that this is important because Saddam
Hussein has, in fact, reversed course. It is due to our own
firmness and also to the strong international pressure brought
to bear on Baghdad by nations from around the world.
I know that there are some Senators who have urged that we
reject the agreement. But we believe that the wiser course is
to test the agreement. In the days ahead, we are going to be
working with the Security Council and the U.N. Special
Commission, UNSCOM, to see that the agreement is implemented in
a way that reflects the core principles upon which we insisted.
That is, that Security Council resolutions be obeyed, that the
integrity of UNSCOM is preserved, and that there be no
artificial timetables or linkages that would prevent UNSCOM
from doing a full, professional job.
With our support, UNSCOM will be testing Iraq's promises
thoroughly and comprehensively. As President Clinton said on
Monday, our soldiers, our ships, and our planes will stay there
in force until we are satisfied that Iraq is complying with its
commitments.
The events of the past few days have not changed our
fundamental goal, which is to end or contain the threat posed
by Saddam Hussein to Iraq's neighbors and the world. A solid
U.N. inspection and monitoring regime backed by sanctions and
enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones is our preferred
means of achieving that goal. But we retain the authority, the
responsibility, the means, and the will to use military force
if that is required.
The recent focus on the situation in Iraq should not divert
our attention though from other important decisions we have to
make this year. For example, we are working with Europe to meet
global challenges such as proliferation, crime, and the
environment. And we are working in Europe to realize this
century's most elusive dream: a Europe that is whole, free,
prosperous, and at peace.
This past Tuesday I joined Defense Secretary Cohen and
General Shelton in testifying before the Foreign Relations
Committee in support of NATO's decision to invite three new
European democracies to join the alliance while holding the
door open for others. By adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic to the alliance we will expand the area within Europe
where wars simply do not happen. I hope with the support of
leaders from both parties that the Senate will make the right
choice and allow NATO enlargement to proceed.
Another major test of our commitment to building a united
and peaceful Europe is our effort to assist in fulfilling the
Dayton accords. Around Christmas, I went to Bosnia with the
President, and Senator Dole, and the chairman of the full
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and other Members of
Congress. We found a Bosnia that remains deeply divided, but
where multiethnic institutions are once again beginning to
function. More slowly than we foresaw, but surely as we hope,
the infrastructure of Bosnian peace is gaining shape and the
psychology of reconciliation is taking hold. But if we turn our
backs on Bosnia now, as some urge, the confidence we are
building would erode and the result could well be a return to
genocide and war. Senators, quitting is not the American way,
and we should continue to play an appropriate role in Bosnia as
long as our help is needed, our allies and friends do their
share, and most importantly, the Bosnian people are striving to
help themselves. That is the right thing to do, and it is the
smart thing, for it is the only way to ensure that when our
troops do leave Bosnia that they leave for good.
Mr. Chairman, there is much that America can accomplish
unilaterally, bilaterally, or in cooperation with close allies.
But many problems can best be dealt with through broad
international action. That is why we participate in
organizations such as the United Nations.
Last year, as you recall, we worked together to develop a
3-year plan to encourage the United Nations reform that we want
while paying our overdue U.N. bills. Unfortunately, that spirit
of cooperation broke down toward the end of the session when a
small group of House Members blocked final passage of this and
other key measures.
I testified before the authorizing committees about my
concern with the tactics used and will not belabor that point
here. Certainly, your subcommittee did its part by
appropriating the $100 million called for in the first year,
and now we have to find a way to free up that money and to gain
approval of funds for years two and three.
Mr. Chairman, I have been discussing the United Nations and
America's role in it with this subcommittee since 1993.
Together we have helped the United Nations to achieve more
reform in the past half-decade than in the previous 45 years.
But as you know, Mr. Chairman, this progress has not come easy.
We faced opposition every step of the way, and the job is far
from finished.
So let me tell you frankly that if we are not able to pay
our U.N. arrears soon our legs will truly be cut out from under
us at the United Nations. We are told daily by our best allies
and friends that U.S. credibility will be sadly diminished.
That will hurt America and cost Americans.
Let me just cite one example. Last December, the General
Assembly voted on a plan that could have, and I believe would
have, cut our U.N. assessments by roughly $100 million every
year. Our diplomatic team had worked long and hard to make this
possible. But when the U.N. arrears package was killed, support
for that proposal disappeared, and it took a heroic effort to
keep alive the chance for a new vote during the first one-half
of this year. So if we do not seize this opportunity, we will
not have another one until the year 2000.
So we have a choice. We can fail once again to act,
undermine our own diplomatic leadership, and deprive our
taxpayers of savings we might otherwise be able to achieve. Or
we can pay our arrears, restore full U.S. influence, and make
possible a reduction in our assessments that will save U.S.
taxpayers money for as long as we are in the United Nations.
Now I know this choice will not be made by this
subcommittee alone, but I ask your support for prompt action
not tied to any unrelated issue on our supplemental
appropriations request for U.N. arrears. I am convinced it is
the right choice for America.
Mr. Chairman, there was a time not that long ago when our
managers at the State Department could afford to be guided by a
just-in-case philosophy. Planning, acquisitions, and training
could be based on what might be needed. Today, we are compelled
by the pace of change and the tightness of budgets to practice
just-in-time management. That means putting personnel,
resources, and infrastructure where they are required, when
they are required, and being prepared to reposition them
rapidly and flexibly when they are not.
But we still need to make some well-placed investments.
This year our request for State Department operating funds is
about $2.2 billion; barely above last year's. But we are also
seeking an increase of $243 million in our ``Security and
maintenance'' account to upgrade our facilities, especially in
Germany and China.
With respect to information technology, our needs are
basic. We want to install late 20th century computer technology
at every post before the 21st century begins. We need to
replace overloaded phone switchboards before they experience
what is known as catastrophic failure. And we want to ensure
that when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, our
computers do not all crash and send us back to the age of quill
pens and scribes. So I hope you will support us in acquiring
communication systems that are secure, reliable, and expansive
enough to meet the demands of the information age.
Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of State, I can tell you that
Americans can be proud of the people, whether foreign service,
civil service, or foreign service nationals, who work every
day, often under very difficult conditions, to protect our
citizens and our interests around the world. They are really
great people. But if we are to maintain the high standards of
diplomatic representation we need, we must continue to
emphasize high standards in recruiting, and managing our
personnel. We must understand how and how much the world has
changed.
We need to train our people to sift information as much as
to gather it, to surf the web as much as to pound the pavement,
and to look outside traditional diplomatic sources for
information, contacts, and ideas. We need specialists who can
keep up with advances in technology, who have the language and
cultural training required to feel at home wherever they may be
assigned. We need men and women with multiple skills who can
monitor compliance with international property law, assist
Americans in trouble, report on human rights, and promote our
arms control agenda all in the same career and sometimes in the
same week.
To do justice to the strength our Nation finds in its
diversity, we have to do better at hiring, retaining, and
promoting the best people America has to offer from every
background. We are making progress, and I am particularly proud
of the large numbers of women competing successfully to enter
the foreign service this year. But there is much more we can
do, and I hope I can count on this subcommittee's support.
Mr. Chairman, many of our initiatives are directed, as I've
discussed, at particular countries or regions. Others, such as
our efforts to build prosperity, fight international crime, and
protect the environment can best be considered in global terms.
I think that as we are dealing with regional or worldwide
issues, it is hard to lead in the 1990's with institutions
designed for the 1950's. That is why we worked with Congress
last year to develop a plan to reorganize our foreign affairs
agencies to reflect the fact that arms control, public
diplomacy, and international development belong at the heart of
American foreign policy. I hope we will have the subcommittee's
support for early action on reorganization legislation this
year.
Mr. Chairman, one-half a century ago a Democratic President
and a Republican Congress worked together to help forge the
institutions that have shaped our foreign policy and defined
the history of our age. Institutions that proved instrumental
in the defense and spread of freedom, the growth of prosperity,
the defeat of communism, the confirmation over and over again
of America's standing as a leading force for justice and law in
the world. Our predecessors were not prophets, but because they
stood tall they were perhaps able to see a little bit further
into the future than others. They also had faith in our people
and in the principles upon which our Nation was founded. Today
we have a responsibility to honor their faith, to reject the
temptation of complacency, and assume not with complaint, but
welcome, the leader's role established by our forebears.
New Hampshire's Daniel Webster said once that God grants
liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard
and defend it. These words remind us that only by living up to
the heritage of our past can we fulfill the promise of our
future and enter the new century free and respected, prosperous
and at peace.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, Senators, thank you very much and I am very
happy now to answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Madeleine K. Albright
introduction: promoting american interests and universal values
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to discuss the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request
for the Department of State and related programs.
I want to begin by thanking you for your work last year. One of my
highest goals upon becoming Secretary of State was to work with Members
of Congress to restore both the spirit and substance of bipartisan
support for American leadership around the globe. And as the
achievements of this past year reflect, despite some disagreements, we
have been moving in the right direction.
Since I last testified before this Subcommittee, the United States
has helped achieve progress towards a Europe whole and free, a Bosnia
where peace is beginning to take hold, an Asia where security
cooperation is on the rise, an Africa being transformed by new leaders
and fresh thinking, and a Western Hemisphere blessed by an ever-
deepening partnership of democracies.
We have also joined the Chemical Weapons Convention as an original
member, intensified the war against international crime, taken an
essential first step towards a global agreement to combat climate
change and approved the first overall increase in funding for
international affairs programs in several years.
More specifically, with your help, we have made progress in
providing the training, equipment and resources we need to give the
American people the first-class diplomatic representation they deserve.
With the additional resources made available last year, we are
going forward with a major program of infrastructure repair and are
accelerating our modernization of information technology. And I am
pleased that, after several years of personnel reductions, we will have
as many Foreign and Civil service personnel joining us this year, as
leaving.
All this matters, Mr. Chairman, because American leadership is
built not only on our military and economic power, and on the power of
our ideals, but also on the effectiveness of our diplomacy.
The accounts funded by this Subcommittee determine whether we will
have the right people in the right place with the right tools at the
right time. And whether we will therefore be able, through our
bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, effectively to promote peace,
halt the spread of deadly weapons, counter terror, fight international
crime, enforce trade agreements, build democracy, raise core labor
standards, protect the environment, increase respect for human rights,
combat disease, and safeguard the rights of Americans who travel or do
business overseas.
I have said that it is America's strategic objective, as we prepare
for the new century, to seize the opportunity that history has
presented to bring nations closer together around basic principles of
democracy, free markets, respect for the law and a commitment to peace.
America's place in this system is at the center. And our challenge
is to keep the connections between regions and among the most prominent
nations strong and sure.
We must also help other nations become full partners by lending a
hand to those building democracy, emerging from poverty, or recovering
from conflict.
We must summon the spine to deter, the support to isolate, and the
strength to defeat those who run roughshod over the rights of others.
And we must aspire not simply to maintain the status quo--for that
has never been good enough for America. Abroad, as at home, we must aim
for higher standards so that the benefits of growth and the protections
of law are shared not only by the lucky few, but by the hardworking
many.
american leadership around the world
Before proceeding to a discussion of specific accounts, Mr.
Chairman, I would like briefly to review with the Subcommittee some of
the major foreign policy challenges and initiatives we will face during
the coming weeks and months.
Most prominent, of course, is our effort--through diplomacy backed
by the threat of force--to see that Iraq complies with its obligations
to the world community.
That effort is ongoing. On Tuesday, the Security Council was
briefed by Secretary General Kofi Annan on Iraq's written agreement to
reverse course and grant immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
access to U.N. inspectors to sites in Iraq, including those from which
they had previously been excluded.
We attribute the Iraqi commitments not only to our own firmness,
but to the strong international pressure brought to bear on Baghdad by
nations from around the world.
In the days ahead, we will be working with the Security Council and
UNSCOM to ensure that the agreement is implemented in a manner that
reflects the core principles upon which we have insisted: that Security
Council resolutions be obeyed; that the integrity of the U.N. Special
Commission--or UNSCOM--be preserved; and that there be no artificial
timetables or linkages that would prevent UNSCOM from doing a full and
professional job.
With our support, UNSCOM will be testing Iraq's commitments
thoroughly and comprehensively.
And as President Clinton said Monday: ``Our soldiers, our ships,
(and) our planes will stay there in force until we are satisfied Iraq
is complying with its commitments.''
Although the events of the past few days may have changed the
specific circumstances, they have not changed our fundamental goal--
which is to contain or end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to Iraq's
neighbors and the world. A solid U.N. inspection and monitoring regime,
backed by sanctions and enforcement of the no-fly and no-drive zones,
is our preferred means of achieving that goal. But we retain the
authority, the responsibility, the means and the will to use military
force if that is required.
In the meantime, we continue to support expanded efforts through
the United Nations oil-for-food mechanism to ease the suffering of the
Iraqi people. We do this not as a favor to Saddam, who has often
opposed such efforts, but because it is right; and because it deprives
Saddam of the argument that Iraqi hardships justify lifting U.N.
sanctions prematurely.
Mr. Chairman, during my visits last week to Tennessee, South
Carolina and--most audibly--Ohio, I heard two somewhat different but
understandable desires voiced by the American people.
The first was a strong desire to see the Iraq crisis settled
peacefully. Americans have always been reluctant to use force. We do
not want to put the lives of innocent people at risk, and would never
unnecessarily do so.
The second is a desire to see Saddam Hussein removed from power.
Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee a peaceful outcome without
opening the door to yet another round of Iraqi cheating, which we will
not do. Given Saddam's history of aggression, his repeated use of
poison gas and his dishonesty, we cannot safely or responsibly rule out
the use of force in the future.
But if we are required to use force, why not go all the way and
remove Saddam from power? The answer is that it would require a far
greater commitment of military force, and a far greater risk to
American lives, than is currently needed to contain the threat Saddam
poses.
Some have suggested that the solution is to arm and encourage the
Iraqi opposition to initiate a civil war. That option sounds--but is
not--simple. We have worked with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein in
the past, and we are ready to work with them more effectively in the
future. But the opposition is currently divided, and it would be wrong
to create false or unsustainable expectations that could end in
bloodshed or defeat.
This leaves us with a policy that is--quite frankly--not fully
satisfactory to anyone. It is a ``real world'' policy, not a ``feel
good'' policy.
But I am convinced it is the best policy to protect our interests
and those of our friends and allies in the Gulf. It embodies both our
desire for peace and our determination to fight if necessary. It takes
into account current realities, without--in any way--ruling out future
options. It presents the leaders in Baghdad with a clear choice. And it
reflects principles that are vital to uphold, not only in the Gulf now,
but everywhere, always.
Mr. Chairman, the recent focus on the situation in Iraq should not
divert our attention from other important decisions and initiatives we
will undertake this year. For America is a global power, and our
citizens have important interests in every region on every continent.
For example, we are working with Europe to meet global challenges
such as proliferation, crime and the environment.
And we are working in Europe to realize this century's most elusive
dream, a Europe that is whole, free, prosperous and at peace.
Earlier this week, I joined Defense Secretary Cohen and General
Shelton in testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
support of NATO's decision to invite three new European democracies to
join the alliance while holding the door open to others.
By adding Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the alliance,
we will expand the area within Europe where wars simply do not happen.
And we will enlist in the cause of peace three new allies who are
dedicated to NATO principles and ready to contribute to the freedom and
security of the continent.
I hope, and I believe, that with the support of leaders from both
parties, and with the encouragement of the American people, the Senate
will make the right choice--and allow NATO enlargement to proceed.
Another major test of our commitment to building a united and
peaceful Europe is our effort to assist in fulfilling the Dayton
Accords.
Around Christmas, I went to Bosnia with the President and Senator
Dole and a number of Members of Congress. We found a nation that
remains deeply divided, but where multi-ethnic institutions are once
again beginning to function. Economic growth is accelerating. Indicted
war criminals are being tried. More refugees are returning. And--
perhaps most important--a new Bosnian Serb government has been elected
that is committed to implementing Dayton.
More slowly than we foresaw, but as surely as we hoped, the
infrastructure of Bosnian peace is gaining shape and the psychology of
reconciliation is taking hold.
But if we turn our backs on Bosnia now, as some urge, the
confidence we are building would erode, and the result could well be a
return to genocide and war.
Quitting is not the American way. In Bosnia, the mission should
determine the timetable, not the other way around. And as the President
made clear in December, ``that mission must be achievable and tied to
concrete benchmarks, not a deadline.''
Accordingly, we and our allies have agreed that NATO will continue
to lead a multi-national force in Bosnia after SFOR's current mandate
expires in June. Its mission will continue to be to deter hostilities,
support the implementation of the Dayton Agreement, and contribute to
establishing a secure environment in which Bosnian authorities can
increasingly take charge of their country's stability themselves.
Without expanding SFOR's mandate, we will ensure that the new force
has an enhanced capability to deal with the task of ensuring public
security.
And we will review the size of the force periodically as part of
our strategy to gradually transfer its responsibilities to domestic
institutions and other international organizations.
We have already held informal briefings with Senators on these
consultations. As we discuss with our allies and partners the details
of this new phase of operations, you can expect to hear more from us.
We should continue to play an appropriate role in Bosnia as long as
our help is needed, our allies and friends do their share, and--most
importantly--the Bosnian people are striving to help themselves. That
is the right thing to do. And it is the smart thing, for it is the only
way to ensure that when our troops do leave Bosnia, they leave for
good.
Mr. Chairman, one of our most important foreign policy objectives
is to build an inclusive Asia-Pacific community based on stability,
shared interests and the rule of law.
To this end, we have fortified our core alliances, crafted new
defense guidelines with Japan, maintained our forward deployment of
troops, embarked on Four Party talks to create a basis for lasting
peace on the Korean Peninsula, and continued to implement, with our
partners, the Agreed Framework which is dismantling North Korea's
dangerous nuclear program.
We have also intensified our dialogue with China, achieving
progress on economic and security matters, while maintaining our
principles on respect for Tibetan heritage and human rights. Let me
stress here, Mr. Chairman, that engagement is not the same as
endorsement. We continue to have sharp differences with China--but we
also believe that the best way to narrow those differences is to
encourage China to become a fully responsible participant in the
international system.
Steps in the right direction include China's commitment to strictly
control nuclear exports, its assurances on nuclear cooperation with
Iran, its security cooperation on the Korean peninsula, its decision to
sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, its continued economic
liberalization, the release of Wei Jingsheng, its invitation to the
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit, and its agreement to
pursue cooperative activities with us to strengthen the rule of law
(activities that we propose to be partly funded through an increase in
the Asia Foundation's budget).
We have also been working with the IMF to respond to the financial
crisis in East Asia.
Our approach is clear. If a nation affected by instability is to
recover, it must reform in a manner that addresses the underlying
problems that created that instability. And if a nation is willing to
seriously undertake such reforms, we will help.
East Asia includes some of our closest allies and friends,
including South Korea, which faces a large and well-armed military
force across the DMZ. The region also includes some of the best
customers for U.S. products and services--and if they can't buy, we
can't sell.
Moreover, since the IMF functions as a sort of intergovernmental
credit union, its efforts to assist East Asian economies won't cost
U.S. taxpayers a nickel.
Still, there are some who say we should disavow the IMF and abandon
our friends, letting the chips--or dominos--fall where they may.
It is possible, if we were to do so, that East Asia's financial
troubles would not spread and badly hurt our own economy, and that our
decision to walk away would not be misunderstood, and a wave of anti-
American sentiment would not be unleashed, and new security threats
would not arise in this region where 100,000 American troops are
deployed.
All this is possible, but I would not want to bet America's
security or the jobs of your constituents on that proposition. For it
would be a very, very bad bet.
Even with full backing for the IMF, and diligent reforms in East
Asia, recovery will take time. And further tremors are possible.
The best way to end the crisis is to back the reforms now being
implemented, approve the supplemental IMF funding requests submitted by
the President earlier this month, work to keep the virus from
spreading, and develop strategies for preventing this kind of
instability from arising again.
In the Middle East, we continue to guard against another form of
instability through our efforts to encourage progress towards a just,
lasting and comprehensive peace.
Last month, President Clinton presented ideas to Chairman Arafat
and Prime Minister Netanyahu in an effort to break the current
stalemate, recognizing that the parties, given the level of their
distrust, might respond to us even if they remain reluctant to respond
to each other.
The issue now is whether the leaders are prepared to make the kinds
of decisions that will make it possible to put the process back on
track. Indeed, we have to ask: are they prepared to promote their
common interests as partners? Or are they determined to return to an
era of zero-sum relations?
The stakes are high. That's why we have been involved in such an
intensive effort to protect the process from collapsing.
Mr. Chairman, closer to home, we meet at a time of heightened
emphasis in our policy towards the Americas. This attention is
warranted not only by proximity of geography, but by proximity of
values. For today, with one lonely exception, every government in the
hemisphere is freely-elected.
In the weeks ahead, we will be preparing for the second Summit of
the Americas, pressing for democratic change in Cuba and intensifying
our efforts in Haiti, where the challenge of developing a democratic
culture and market economy--where neither has ever existed--is
especially daunting.
We are also taking a fresh approach to Africa, which the President
plans to visit next month. During my own recent trip, I was impressed
by the opportunity that exists to help integrate that continent into
the world economy; build democracy; and gain valuable allies in the
fight against global threats.
To frame a new American approach to the new Africa, we will be
seeking Congressional support for the President's initiative to promote
justice and development in the Great Lakes, and urging approval of the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
leadership through international organizations
Unfinished Business
Mr. Chairman, there is much that America can accomplish
unilaterally, through our bilateral diplomacy or in cooperation with
our close allies. But in today's world, there are also many problems
that can only be dealt with--or can best be dealt with--through broad
international action. For this reason, it serves important American
interests to participate in international organizations whose
activities contribute to our security, prosperity and safety. Among the
most prominent of these organizations are those within the United
Nations system.
Last year, Congress and the Administration worked together to
develop a three year plan to encourage United Nations reform while
paying our long overdue U.N. bills.
Unfortunately, that spirit of constructive cooperation broke down
during the final days of the session. A small group of House Members
blocked final passage of this and other key measures to authorize the
restructuring of our foreign policy institutions and to provide needed
financing for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
I have testified before the authorizing Committees about my concern
with the tactics used to block this legislation, and will not belabor
the point here. Certainly, your Subcommittee did its part by
appropriating the $100 million called for in the first year. Now, we
have to find a way to free up that money and to gain approval of funds
for years two and three.
Mr. Chairman, I have been discussing the U.N. and America's role in
it with this Subcommittee since 1993. And we have had an extremely
productive dialogue.
Together, through legislation and diplomacy, we have helped the
U.N. to achieve more reform in the past half decade than in the 45
years that preceded it.
During this period, the U.N.'s staffing has declined and its budget
has been brought under control. Assessments for U.N. peacekeeping
operations have dropped by 80 percent, and those operations are subject
to far greater discipline. The inspector general's office--which did
not exist in 1993--has grown steadily more aggressive and effective.
And within the U.N. system, a new generation of leaders is taking
the helm--from Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to Deputy Secretary
General Louise Frechette, to Gro Brundtland at the World Health
Organization (WHO), to Mary Robinson, the new U.N. High Commissioner
for Human Rights.
Slowly, but surely, a culture of accountability, transparency and
results is taking hold. And, as you know, Mr. Chairman, this progress
has not come easy. We have faced opposition every step of the way. And
the job is far from finished.
But let me tell you frankly that, if we are not able now--in the
next few months--to approve funding for our U.N. arrears, our legs
truly will be cut out from under us at the U.N. We are told daily, by
our best allies and friends, that U.S. credibility will be sadly
diminished. That will cost Americans and hurt America.
Let me cite just one example.
Last December, the General Assembly voted on a plan that could
have--and I believe would have--cut our share of U.N. assessments to 25
percent for peacekeeping and from 25 percent to 22 percent for the
regular budget--an overall difference in the amount we are assessed of
roughly $100 million every year.
Our diplomatic team had worked long and hard to make this possible.
Don't forget that 22 percent is less than our share of the world's
economy--or GDP--while Europe pays above its share. And in two years,
Japan will be required to pay more than 20 percent of the U.N. budget.
But when word arrived in New York that the U.N. arrears package had
been killed, support for reducing our rate of assessments disappeared.
It took an heroic effort to persuade the U.N. to leave open the
possibility for a new vote during the first half of this year. If we do
not act by then, the next opportunity will not come until the year
2000.
So we have a choice. We can fail once again to act, undermine our
own diplomatic leadership, weaken prospects for further U.N. reform,
and deprive our taxpayers of savings we might otherwise be able to
achieve.
Or we can pay our arrears, restore full U.S. influence, press ahead
on reform, and make possible a reduction in our assessments that will
save U.S. taxpayers money for as long as we are in the U.N.
I know that this choice will not be made by this Subcommittee
alone. But I ask your support for prompt action--not tied to any
unrelated issue--on our supplemental appropriations request for U.N.
arrears. I am convinced it is the right choice for America.
Contributions to International Organizations
More broadly, I ask your support for the President's budget request
for the entire Contributions to International Organizations Account for
fiscal year 1999.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, we have reviewed the
importance of these organizations to American interests on an annual
basis.
The Clinton Administration, like prior Administrations from Truman
to Bush, has found the U.N., itself, a valuable means of enlisting the
help of others in pursuit of goals we support. Current examples include
the work of the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq, the effort to develop
an independent and professional police force in Bosnia, and the war
crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans.
Agencies affiliated with the U.N. also provide vital services.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) helps protect
Americans from the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The IAEA conducts
essential verification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and its
strengthened safeguards regime provides assurance that peaceful nuclear
programs are not being diverted for weapons purposes.
The World Health Organization, which promises to be far better
managed under its new director, helps to research, track, contain and
above all prevent disease and other health problems from malnutrition
and malaria to Ebola and HIV/AIDS. This makes us all safer and can
provide long term financial savings, as well. For example, U.S.
taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars annually because WHO
eradicated smallpox and thereby ended the need to vaccinate against the
disease.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) enhances international
trade in agricultural and fisheries products. Through the Codex
Alimentarius, it applies objective quality and safety standards that
facilitate the export of more than $60 billion in U.S. agricultural
products each year. The FAO also protects U.S. agriculture from
potential losses through its plant, pest and animal disease control
programs.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) was established in 1919
in response to unsafe working conditions associated with
industrialization. Although workplace conditions have improved
dramatically in much of the world, there remain large, economically-
significant labor markets characterized by work forces that are
underage, under-paid and poorly-treated.
Accordingly, the ILO serves two primary U.S. policy objectives:
promoting respect for human rights in the workplace, and minimizing
unfair international competition from firms and countries that do not
observe core labor standards. To this end, we will be working this year
for a strong ILO declaration on core labor standards and proposals to
implement them worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, other specialized U.N. agencies and international
organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union, NATO,
the OECD and the Organization of American States also serve important
U.S. interests. To maintain our influence and leverage within these
organizations, we need to stay--or become--current on our obligations
to them.
United Nations Peacekeeping
I also ask the Subcommittee's support for the President's request
for $231 million for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities (CIPA) Account.
As we have discussed over the years, U.N. peacekeeping provides one
of a number of options available to us and to the world community to
prevent or respond to conflicts. Although they are not the answer in
all cases, well-designed U.N. operations can be effective in the right
circumstances, and have the advantage of spreading costs and risks
widely and fairly.
Our CIPA request this year includes funds to pay our assessments
for critical operations along Iraq's border with Kuwait, on the Golan
Heights, in Bosnia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, to
name a few.
This past year saw several U.N. successes. The U.N. observer
mission in Liberia helped provide a secure environment for elections in
August 1997 and then withdrew. The U.N. Transitional Administration in
Eastern Slavonia (UNTAES) facilitated that region's peaceful
reintegration into Croatia in January--it has now withdrawn, succeeded
by a small U.N. policing program. And U.N. peacekeeping operations
marked a success in Guatemala, with the implementation of the final
peace agreement that was signed in December 1996.
I visited Guatemala last May. At a guerrilla demobilization camp I
saw firsthand how support from the U.N., USAID, and others had given
the Guatemalan people a chance to recover from the debilitation of war
and begin to build a true national community. Although the process of
reconciliation in Guatemala still has far to go, the U.N. operation
made a unique and indispensable contribution.
In Tajikistan, where a peace agreement signed last fall is holding
tenuously, the U.N. hopes to make similar progress this year. And in
Angola, a U.N. observer mission is supervising the final phases of that
country's peace process.
As always, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of this Subcommittee's long-
standing and long-justified desire to be consulted when new U.N.
peacekeeping operations are planned--not just when the bills come due.
I am committed, and I know Assistant Secretary Lyman and Ambassador
Richardson are committed, to meeting this obligation.
In this connection, I note the possibility that we will support a
new operation or operations in Africa. I want to stress, Mr. Chairman,
based on my recent visit to that continent, and my discussions with
regional leaders, how important international peacekeeping has been and
is to this part of the world. African leaders are determined to do more
themselves to solve disputes within the region, and U.N. support can
help them succeed.
Important U.S. interests in Africa are served every time an area of
instability and conflict is transformed into one of peace and
development. This contributes to our economic interests, reduces the
likelihood of costly humanitarian disasters and refugee flows, and
expands the network of societies working to counter global threats such
as illegal narcotics, crime, terror and disease.
managing for the twenty-first century
Mr. Chairman, American leadership is built on American ideals,
backed by our economic and military might, and supported by our
diplomacy. Unfortunately, despite progress made last year with
bipartisan support from this Subcommittee, the resources we need to
support our diplomacy are stretched thin.
Over the past decade, funding--in real terms--has declined sharply.
Personnel levels are down. Training has been cut. And we face critical
infrastructure needs that cannot be put off any longer.
There was a time, not that long ago, when State Department managers
could afford to be guided by a ``just in case'' philosophy. Planning,
acquisitions and training could be based on what might be needed.
Today, we are compelled by the pace of change and the tightness of
budgets to practice ``just in time'' management. That requires putting
personnel, resources and infrastructure where they are required, when
they are required, and being prepared to reposition them rapidly and
flexibly when they are not.
Already, this has translated into smaller staffs, more versatile
personnel, and better cost-sharing among agencies. It has meant
selling, buying, renting and swapping properties around the world to
achieve the most cost-effective mix. It has meant developing service
programs which pay for themselves. And, through our reorganization
planning, it has meant taking a hard look at functions which may be
duplicative.
But to continue our progress, we need to make some well-placed
investments.
This year our request for State Department Operating funds is
$2.177 billion. This reflects an increase of 4.8 percent from fiscal
year 1998, nearly half of which is attributable to inflation and
mandatory pay raises. In addition, we are seeking an increase of $243
million in our ``Security and Maintenance of U.S. Missions'' account,
to provide much-needed upgrades and improvements in infrastructure.
Infrastructure
Like the rest of us, Mr. Chairman, our facilities are aging--Old
State is 60; New State is 40. Our request this year includes funds for
a portion of the long-awaited renovation project at C Street, although
the lion's share of money for this project is being requested by the
General Services Administration. Just as important, we are requesting
funds for some of our most dire infrastructure needs overseas,
beginning with two of our most crucial posts--Berlin and Beijing.
In 1999, the Germans will complete the move of their capital from
Bonn. We need to complete the same move by building a new embassy in
the new capital.
This move symbolizes the success of fifty years of partnership
between the United States and Germany, a partnership cemented with the
Berlin airlift 50 years ago this summer and which ultimately helped
defeat Communism, bring down the Wall, and anchor Germany firmly within
a strong Euro-Atlantic community. The victory reflected in Berlin's
establishment as the capital of a united and democratic Germany is one
in which Americans may take great pride, and for which we should be on
the ground from the beginning.
It is also a tremendous opportunity. Germany possesses the world's
third-largest economy; it is host to the largest overseas contingent of
U.S. troops; it is the driving force behind European integration; and
it is a nation with whom we work closely on matters as diverse as
building peace in Bosnia to safeguarding the global economy to
exploring space.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we must move now to build our new
facility, and assure the high quality representation our interests
demand and our people expect. We estimate the total costs of designing,
building and furnishing a new U.S. Embassy Berlin to be $120 million.
In fiscal 1999, we are requesting $50 million--less than half the total
cost--because we expect to raise the remaining funds required by
selling excess U.S. property in Germany.
Our presence in China is large, growing and vital to our interests.
In recent years, the number of Americans visiting that country as
tourists, students or for business purposes has mushroomed--as has the
number of Chinese seeking to enter the United States. And as we have
developed a broader agenda on which we seek to cooperate with China,
U.S. agencies have sent more officials to our missions in that country.
Total staffing increased by 15 percent last year alone.
Unfortunately, as the Department's Inspector General has confirmed,
with the exception of Hong Kong, our posts in China suffer from over-
crowding, inadequate facilities, insufficient information technology,
sub-standard housing, and serious safety and security deficiencies.
We have developed an overall plan to address these issues,
beginning this year, by building reasonably-priced housing in Shanghai
and rehabilitating the existing Beijing chancery--both of which can be
funded with proceeds from the sale of other properties. We are also
requesting $200 million to acquire a site and design and construct a
new Embassy for Beijing.
Of course, the problems we face in China are not unique. In
critical posts from Luanda to Kiev to Vladivostok, America's
representatives are doing their jobs under conditions that are
unacceptably primitive, unhealthy or unsafe. Due to budget restraints,
we have requested funding for only a fraction of the needs we have
identified, focusing on improving our safety programs and increasing
the number of maintenance specialists we have on staff, in order to
extend yet further the useful life of the infrastructure we have.
Information Technology
Our most pressing information technology needs are basic. We want
to install late-20th century computer technology at every post before
the 21st century begins. We need to replace old and overloaded phone
switchboards before they experience what is known as ``catastrophic
failure.'' We need to implement new information security features to
protect our data and networks. And we want to ensure that, when the
clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999, our computers don't all
crash and send us back to the age of quill pens and scribes.
As communications become ever more sophisticated, and ever more
reliance is placed on computer hookups, State and our sister agencies
need more lines of access, known as ``bandwidth,'' between Washington
and the field.
Unlike your local phone company, we cannot always depend on local
lines in foreign countries, but must often supplement the
communications infrastructure available. And, of course, we must do the
work in-house for security reasons. The resulting ``phone bill,'' Mr.
Chairman, is the price we must pay for having the right person on the
right phone line when the President, or you, or I, need to get through.
I hope you will support us in working to put together a system that is
secure, reliable, and capacious enough to meet the demands of the
Information Age.
Personnel
Mr. Chairman, as Secretary of State, I can tell you that every
American can be proud of the people--foreign and civil service and
foreign nationals--who work every day, often under very difficult
conditions, to protect our citizens and our interests around the world.
I have never been associated with a more talented, professional or
dedicated group of people.
But to maintain the highest standards of diplomatic representation
in this era, we must continue to emphasize high standards in
recruiting, training and managing our personnel.
We need to train our people to sift information as much as to
gather it, to surf the web as much as to pound the pavement, and to
look outside the traditional ``diplomatic sources'' for information,
contacts and ideas.
We need specialists who can keep up with fast-moving developments
in electronic commerce, genetic engineering, or telecommunications. We
need people with good computer skills, with the knowledge to staff our
regional environmental hubs, and with the language and cultural
training required to feel at home in faraway lands. And we need men and
women who can monitor compliance with intellectual property law, assist
Americans in trouble, report on human rights and promote our arms
control agenda, all in the same career--and sometimes in the same week.
And to do justice to the strength our nation finds in its
diversity, we have to do better at hiring, retaining and promoting the
best people America has to offer--from every background. We are making
progress. I am particularly proud of the large numbers of women
competing successfully to enter the Foreign Service this year. But
there is much more we can do, from making our overseas facilities more
accessible to persons with disabilities to showing more support for
State Department families.
I hope I can count on this Subcommittee as a partner in these
efforts.
Border Security
Supported by the retention of Machine Readable Visa (MRV) fees, we
will continue implementing a comprehensive border security strategy to
improve consular systems and services.
Consular systems are our nation's first line of defense against the
flow of international terrorism and crime across our borders. We must
be able to screen out the few visa applicants who would harm our people
or violate our laws, without hindering the millions of legitimate
visitors who enrich our lives and add tens of billions of dollars to
our economy every year.
With the MRV, we have the ability to check applicants' names
against government records by computer, in every consular post. We are
emphasizing improved training for consular officers, and working to
provide even better computer equipment. We have also upgraded our
passport-issuing services to meet record demand.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for having the foresight to
continue the legislation allowing the Department to retain MRV fees
through fiscal year 1999, during which we plan to fund our border
security programs at $296 million.
Consolidation
Mr. Chairman, many of our initiatives are directed, as I have
discussed, at particular countries or regions. Others, such as our
efforts to build prosperity, fight international crime and protect the
environment, can best be considered in global terms.
But whether we are dealing with regional or world wide issues, it
is hard to lead in the 1990's with institutions designed for the
1950's.
That is why we worked with Congress last year to develop a plan to
reorganize our foreign affairs agencies to reflect the fact that arms
control, public diplomacy and international development belong at the
heart of American foreign policy.
As part of this reorganization, the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency (ACDA) and the United States Information Agency (USIA) are to
integrate their activities into the Department of State. Unfortunately,
legislation providing the necessary authorization for this
reorganization was blocked, thus requiring the agencies to present
separate budget requests for fiscal year 1999.
I hope we will have the Subcommittee's support for early action on
reorganization legislation this year. This is essential not only to
move ahead with our management goals, but to ensure the effective
implementation of policies and programs vital to U.S. interests.
For example, it is a core purpose of American foreign policy to
halt the spread and possible use of weapons of mass destruction, which
remain--years after the Cold War's end--the most serious threat to the
security of our people.
This imperative reflects the value of the services provided to
America by ACDA. As part of our effort to reorganize our foreign policy
institutions, we have ``double-hatted'' ACDA Director John Holum as our
Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs, and ACDA has worked closely with the Department to
develop an effective plan for integration.
Today, ACDA's agenda includes: ratifying and implementing the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; continuing strategic arms reductions
with Russia; taking steps, with other agencies, to limit the quantity,
improve the security and prevent the diversion of fissile materials
worldwide; implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention; negotiating an
inspections regime to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention; and
beginning negotiations to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines.
To accomplish all this, ACDA is requesting $43.4 million--a total
operating budget smaller in constant dollars than that under which it
is operating this fiscal year.
USIA has also experienced cuts in staffing and--in constant-
dollars--appropriations. But the importance of its mission has, if
anything, increased, as the challenges of globalization demand a more
comprehensive and sophisticated approach to America's public diplomacy.
USIA's request for fiscal year 1999 is $6 million lower than its
currently-available funds. Within this reduced level, USIA plans to
accommodate several priority increases to expand field programs in East
Asia; enhance broadcasting to central Africa and Russia; complete a new
relay station for Asia; provide added support for Fulbright exchange
programs; and provide improved high-speed telecommunications capacity
to a dozen additional overseas posts.
This request also includes funding for the National Endowment for
Democracy, which receives funding from USIA for its important work
supporting the development of democratic culture and institutions
around the world.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, half a century ago, a Democratic President and
Republican Congress worked together to help forge the institutions that
have shaped our foreign policy and defined the history of our age;
institutions that proved instrumental in the defense and spread of
freedom; the growth of prosperity; the defeat of Communism; and the
confirmation over and over again of America's standing as a leading
force for justice and law in the world.
These institutions included NATO, the United Nations, the Voice of
America, the OAS, the National Security Council and the Foreign Service
Institute.
Their architects could not have conceived that our ambassadors
would one day be cabling Washington by computer in real time; that in
promoting trade, our diplomats would be dealing not only with grain and
steel but with bits, bytes and movie rights; or even for that matter,
that a female Secretary of State would one day meet with a black
president of South Africa.
Our predecessors were not prophets. But because they stood tall;
they were perhaps able to see a little bit further into the future than
others. They also had faith in our people, in the principles upon which
our nation was founded, in our determination to honor the commitments
we make, and in our desire to base our lives, as individuals and as a
nation, not on our fears, but on our hopes.
Today, we have a responsibility to honor their faith; to reject the
temptation of complacency and assume, not with complaint, but welcome,
the leader's role established by our forebears.
For it is only by living up to the heritage of our past that we
will fulfill the promise of our future--and enter the new century free
and respected, prosperous and at peace.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much. And
now, I would be pleased to respond to your questions.
Senator Gregg. Thank you for that excellent statement and
the wonderful quote at the end. It is the tradition of my
chairmanship to always yield to the chairman of the full
committee whenever he appears in our committee. For some
unknown reason I have found that to be proper protocol. So I
yield to my----
Senator Stevens. And I similarly have found it to be proper
protocol to thank you, Madam Secretary, and say I would like to
submit questions for the record. Thank you very much.
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. I will yield my time initially to Senator
Campbell who arrived first, and was sitting here when I
arrived.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like always,
have conflicts, and I have to go chair another hearing right
about the time we vote. But it is a pleasure to welcome you,
Madam Secretary, and discuss your Department's fiscal year 1999
budget request. I was looking through your comments. They seem
to be quite comprehensive. I am very supportive of the efforts
you have done, and I admire your courage particularly because
of the beating you took up there at that university. I know
that was not easy. I do not know who made the decision to go up
there and do a hearing at a university when you are talking
about going to war, but a big mistake.
Secretary Albright. Should have gone to Colorado.
Senator Campbell. Should have come to Colorado Springs,
they would have all been supportive of you. [Laughter.]
Iraq situation
But before we discuss today's budget hearings, I just have
to take this opportunity to make a comment on the situation in
Iraq. From my belief--and I am sure you may know more about it
than I do--but it looked to me like we have just concluded the
second gulf war, and we lost without firing a shot. In fact,
according to yesterday's Washington Post, the Iraqi Government
declared a national holiday and told the country Saddam Hussein
has broken United States domination on the U.N. weapons
inspection commission.
Now I certainly admire your hard work, but boy, when I read
headlines like that, frankly, it makes me sick to my stomach.
After spending--we are hearing different amounts, but well over
billions of dollars to show a significant force, the most
significant since Desert Storm--I really question what we have
accomplished. It seems to me that, No. 1, we have increased
Saddam Hussein's stature among the Arab countries. He has
tweaked us again. He obviously wants to be the new Nasser of
the Middle East, and he looks like he is well on his way to
doing that.
We have allowed him to increase access to financial
resources from the sale of oil, which I am convinced he will
use to buy new improved arms technologies. We have made the
next conflict, I think, just prolonged it, but it will surely
come and be more difficult when we have to face it. We have
diminished our stature with Israel and most of our world
allies. We have undermined the sovereignty of this country by
allowing the United Nations to broker the deal, and now we are
sort of going along as the tail of that to support that
brokered deal and not getting too much support from our allies.
More importantly, we have given Saddam Hussein, who has really
been a master of brinkmanship, more time to build a bigger
arsenal, more time to rally international support, more time to
increase the cost to American citizens. I think that when we
talk about military conflicts, there is no question that they
are entwined with public relations conflicts.
We clearly have the ability to win a military conflict. But
I thought it was a lose-lose deal from the beginning on the
international public relations scale, because if we had bombed
Iraq, and they would have put children and women in front of
the places that were being bombed, we would have lost that one
for sure. And a lot of Americans who were supporting the
bombing would have gone the other way as soon as they had seen
pictures on CNN of dead women and children.
By the same token, by not doing it we have done what I have
already mentioned, and that is increase Saddam Hussein's
stature. I think we just led with our chin on that without any
clearly defined goals, or any exit strategy, or any clear long-
term plan about how we were going to handle it. I hate to see
us now pull back everything only to have to put them back over
there when Saddam Hussein makes his next move.
I support, as most Americans, some kind of a peaceful
resolution if we could find it. But I do not think we are ever
going to find it with Saddam Hussein. I do not think he is ever
going to agree to peace. I think the mentality in that part of
the country is that you only negotiate at gunpoint, and that is
it. Anything less than that is considered cowardice on the part
of your adversary.
I do not want to belabor that because I know that we have
other questions to ask you about the expansion of NATO, which
conceptually I kind of agree with, although I share the
concerns of many of my colleagues about who is going to pay the
bill. I know full well what we are paying well and recognize
that the concept of NATO is that everybody brings something to
the table for mutual defense of the members. But I am not sure
some of the countries that want to come in are going to bring
something to the table, and may end up simply being recipient
countries.
The ongoing question about the repayment to the United
Nations, I understand what you are saying about that, but also
recognize that one-half the time we go to the United Nations
where we are paying a good portion of the bill, we end up with
those people that are recipients of some of that American money
voting against us at every turn. So I have some real concerns
about that, too.
prepared statement
I certainly appreciate you being here, and did not want you
to take that as any kind of a personal affront. I know you have
worked just tremendously hard and made a great, dedicated
effort to doing the right thing, and I certainly admire you for
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Good morning Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this
morning and I welcome you here today, Madam Secretary, to
discuss the State Department's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Before we begin today's budget discussion, I would like to
take this opportunity to comment on the situation in Iraq. We
have just concluded the second Gulf War and it seems that we
have lost without even firing a shot. In fact, according to
yesterday's Washington Post, the Iraqi government declared a
national holiday and told the country Saddam Hussein had broken
U.S. domination of the U.N. weapons inspections commission.
After sending $3 billion for the most significant show of
military force since Desert Storm, what do we have to show for
it? What have we accomplished?
It seems to me that we have done little more than increase
Saddam Hussein's stature among the Arab countries; we have
allowed him increased access to financial resources from the
sale of oil which he will inevitably use to buy new and
improved arms technologies; we have made the next conflict,
which will surely come, far more difficult now that we have
diminished our stature with Israel and other world allies; and
we have undermined the sovereignty of the United States by
allowing the U.N. to broker this tenuous deal. More
importantly, we have given Saddam Hussein, the master of
brinkmanship, more time to build a bigger arsenal, more time to
rally international support, and given ourselves more time to
increase the cost of keeping our ships, planes, and troops in
the Gulf at the expense of American taxpayers.
It seems that we are rapidly becoming a toothless tiger by
allowing our military operations to be led by public relations
experts rather than our military leaders. We led with our chin
by having no clear objective, exit plan, or clearly defined
goals. So for now, Madam Secretary, we have no other choice but
to sit and wait to see what other games Saddam Hussein wishes
to play. Like everyone here, I hope for a peaceful resolution
to this matter, but I have serious concerns about our approach.
Mr. Chairman, I know that we have a number of very
important budget items that we need to cover this morning and
only a limited time to do it so I will bring my comments to a
close.
Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to
today's testimony on the State Department's fiscal year 1999
budget request.
Iraq
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator. Let me, if I might,
take the opportunity to really give a better answer on Iraq.
First of all I think we have to remember, we did not create
this problem, nor did we create this crisis. There is no
question that it is a difficult one to deal with. I believe
that what we have done here is actually a win-win situation.
First of all, it is very clear to us that Saddam Hussein has
actually had to reverse course and allow access to all kinds of
sites that he had never allowed access to before. He also has
agreed that, or he has had to agree that UNSCOM can continue
its work.
What I am very pleased about is that Chairman Butler, who
is the chairman of this United Nations inspector group, has
made quite clear that he is satisfied with the arrangements
that have been made. This is the statement that he made
yesterday:
``I am perfectly satisfied that this document, applied
properly with Iraq cooperation, strengthens my organization.
This document is a very important one,'' Butler said. It is the
first one that Saddam Hussein has personally engaged in since
the end of the gulf war. The fine print in this document is
what I call the thumbprint. Saddam Hussein has been involved in
this and it has got real commitment in it to enable us to get
our job done. I just hope they adhere to it.
Now what we are saying, and as the aspects of how this is
going to work becomes clarified as a result of very tough
questions on our part, the proof of it is in the testing.
UNSCOM will go back in and do the testing. That is a win
situation.
We have also said that we will keep our forces on high
alert until we are sure of this. Then, Senator, as you know
there was a great deal of sense, you stated it yourself, that
we were not getting international cooperation. It will be very
clear, if Saddam Hussein reneges on an agreement that he has
made now publicly, that there will be a great deal more support
for what we were doing. While I have to tell you, there was a
lot of support already, and I can take more time to explain
that.
Now let me just say in terms of the publicity, I am not
sure you would expect anything different from Saddam Hussein's
controlled press or his controlled country that he would
celebrate. We just cannot buy that. That is what he is doing,
and I think we need to understand that he has actually reversed
course on paper, and we now have to test it.
Senator Campbell. One last comment, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, anybody that believes Saddam Hussein is good for his word
is being naive, in my opinion. I am concerned about keeping a
high state of readiness, about the long-term costs, as any of
us would. But you mentioned that we did not create that
problem. No question about it, we did not. We did not create
cancer either. But you cannot compromise it; you have to kill
it or cut it out. I am absolutely convinced that we are going
to be drug into some kind of a long, embroiled problem over
there until Saddam Hussein simply is not in power any more.
I apologize for taking so long.
Secretary Albright. I hate to compare anything to cancer,
but I truly do think that we have to work this problem. I have
made very clear that we are ready to deal with a post-Saddam
regime. We have worked in the past with opposition groups. We
will do so in the future. We need to deal with this problem.
But I am sorry, as with cancer, it cannot be resolved
immediately.
Senator Campbell. I understand. Comparing this to cancer
gives a bad name to cancer.
Secretary Albright. But I do think that the problem here is
the following: That this is a difficult issue that we have to
deal with in a sustained way. I think I feel comfortable that
we are making the right choices. We have not given up on the
use of force. We are testing the agreement, because I agree
with you that anybody who believes Saddam Hussein's word is
naive. I do not believe his word. The proof will be in the
testing.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome once again, Secretary Albright. I just want to echo
what many of my colleagues say, that you continue to do an
outstanding job as Secretary of State. And as somebody who got
her start in politics as a protester, this is one protester who
thinks you are doing pretty good.
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski. Let me just say a few things in terms of
your testimony and then get immediately to my question. First,
I really want to say that I support the administration's policy
for paying our U.N. arrearage and paying our dues. The United
States of America cannot do anything alone, and we cannot go it
alone.
If one looks at the agencies you describe on page 12 of
your testimony, the World Health Organization, which protects
the world against infectious disease and tracks the disease
around the world and how to prevent it. Food and agriculture,
to make sure that the world's food supply is safe and which we
are going to be introducing an initiative with the Vice
President later on this week. International labor, which is one
of the most important human rights tools to eliminate the world
of the scourge of child labor and even child slavery.
So we cannot do that by ourselves. We need the world, and I
think we need to pay our dues and act like a responsible
country in order to do that.
I would also like to associate myself with your remarks
about recognizing the value of a professional foreign service,
that there will be new skills and a new generation coming in. I
believe this committee and this Congress should get behind
supporting that.
inspection process in Iraq
In terms of Iraq, I support the administration's direction
here in which we need to test Saddam Hussein and not just rest
on the agreement. I would seek clarification from you today
about one of the aspects related to the inspection process. As
I understand it, UNSCOM is supposed to come with, but that
there is also a parallel process of something with untrained
people, diplomatic corps, which seems to be vague, unclear, and
perhaps untrained to really do the type of precise testing and
evaluation that needs to be done.
Could you comment? Do we have two tracks for inspection,
one competent and the other show biz?
Secretary Albright. Not quite. Thank you very much for what
you said about the United Nations and our need to pay. It is a
club and it has dues. We are a leading member of the club, and
we have just refused to pay our dues, which is not the way that
we Americans normally behave.
Let me take a minute, because you have asked, to explain
the UNSCOM structure. These inspectors were created after the
gulf war, with a chairman appointed by the Secretary General.
That chairman has two groups under him. One is a group of
professional inspectors who have been divided into groups
according to their expertise and what they are looking for. So
there is a biological group, and a chemical group, et cetera.
Then there are a group of commissioners, who are more like a
board, part-time people who are also under the direction of the
chairman, and on a regular basis, kind of interpret what they
have seen. What we wanted as a part of this is to make sure
that these presidential sites were actually under the
inspection of the professionals, under that first group.
Senator Mikulski. That is right.
Secretary Albright. So what has happened is that a new
group has been created under UNSCOM with Chairman Butler at the
top of it and then a group within it that will be run now under
Chairman Butler's direction by a commissioner, one of the
people from the other side of it, which is also under Chairman
Butler's direction.
The reports are that the Secretary General has chosen a man
we know very well, a Sri Lankan who had been Ambassador, who
ran the NPT Conference, who is a disarmament expert. He will be
the commissioner of this. Then under him there will be an
inspector who will lead the team, and that will be an UNSCOM
person.
Now what has been agreed to is that a small group of
diplomats would accompany the team and do no inspection at all,
but be observers to the team. They will be set up in a way
where they will not know exactly where they are going. It will
be foolproof in terms of early warning. So we are comfortable
with the way it has been set up.
Senator Mikulski. But do you believe that with this third
group that has been created that there will be, based on what
you have just said, the competency to truly evaluate whether
Saddam Hussein was complying with the U.N. resolutions? Or is
this the possibility of a loophole where he could give the
illusion of complying but because the expertise is not there,
could essentially evade the kind of usual and customary and
professional UNSCOM----
Secretary Albright. It is our belief that that same
expertise will be there. Again I go back to what Mr. Butler
said. He said that, all of it comes through him as executive
chairman, and I am looking forward to this development. It
expands our staff and gives us an extra resource.
Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, my time is almost up.
Senator Gregg. Take a couple more minutes.
Senator Mikulski. That might be a line of questioning
others would pursue.
Terrorism
But I want to go to something else related to this new
world of black biology, really ghoulish biology. Biology, when
you are the Senator from NIH, you think of biology as saving
lives, not destroying lives. This then goes to our preparedness
against terrorism. Could you share with us how our own, to the
extent that you could in an unclassified hearing, what the
State Department is doing to both--in coordination to prevent
us any type of attack, and do we have a coordinated interagency
plan for responding to such an attack?
Secretary Albright. Yes; thank you. First of all, our
policy vis-a-vis terrorists is to make no concession to them,
treat them as criminals, pursue them aggressively, apply the
law, and place maximum pressure on state sponsors of terrorism.
We have a long-established counterterrorism mechanism in which
officials of key agencies meet regularly. The coordination
involves both the deputy level and assistant secretary level,
as well as the specialized working groups. State is the lead
agency dealing with overseas terrorism, Justice and FBI deal
with terrorism within the United States.
Now annually, we also name state sponsors of terrorism,
triggering a broad range of economic and other sanctions.
Currently on the list we have Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Syria, Sudan, and Cuba. Then we designated 30 groups as foreign
terrorist organizations in October 1997, and that triggers
various restrictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Senator Mikulski. But what are we doing here to make sure
that we are really ready? I am the ranking member of the FEMA
committee, which was originally a cold war agency designed to
help Americans faced with nuclear war. You and I are the same
generation. Remember, we all used to run under desks, and they
would blow air raid drills. I was in a Catholic school, and I
would say my prayers, and we would wait.
Now we are into the possibility of a biological action
against an American city. I just wonder then, what is State's
role? Then describe for us--because we will be asking Reno and
Freeh and so on this same question.
Secretary Albright. As I said, we have an interagency
working group. I think it would be my sense that it is
something that needs to be developed and evolved to deal with
newer problems. But we do have a way of looking at it.
There are some who believe that it ought to be even more
centralized. But I think that we believe that it is important
to do it through agency interaction. We will get back to you, I
think, with some more detailed things and work with you more
closely on it.
Senator Mikulski. I would really encourage a sense of
urgency within our own country about it. I believe that there
is the leadership in the executive branch to do that.
But thank you. I know my time is up, and I yield to my
colleagues.
Secretary Albright. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. May I
ask that my opening remarks be made a part of the record?
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
Senator Inouye. Madam Secretary, welcome. I thank you as
one citizen for a job well done.
Secretary Albright. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Madam Secretary, I have several questions,
one on the peace process and the other on the East-West Center,
but may I just submit them for your consideration?
Secretary Albright. Yes. Thank you.
Jerusalem Embassy move
Senator Inouye. I have just one question I would like to
ask at this time. Three years ago we passed the Jerusalem
Embassy Relocation Act, and the act stated that by May 1999 the
Embassy in Tel Aviv will be moved to Jerusalem. Last year the
Congress appropriated $9.5 million for architectural design.
Can you give this committee a progress report on where we are
at this time?
Secretary Albright. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Let me just
say that, obviously we have been asked to file reports about
this. We have filed five such reports describing the options
should the President decide to establish an Embassy in
Jerusalem, and we have made arrangements with the Government of
Israel for a site in west Jerusalem for a new diplomatic or
consular establishment. We have made clear that we will keep
our options open.
Let me just say this, our next report is due to you on
March 5. But also I have to say, and you asked about the status
of the Middle East peace process, obviously the status of
Jerusalem is one of the final status issue discussions. That is
what was negotiated at Oslo One. I think that we have all
determined that Jerusalem is a final status issue.
Senator Inouye. Does that mean that the relocation will not
be implemented until the peace process has been completed?
Secretary Albright. As I said, we have kept our options
open. But we believe that it is important to make sure that the
issue of Jerusalem and its status remain in the final status
negotiations.
Senator Inouye. Then my followup question may have the same
response. We have noted that children born in Jerusalem, in
their birth certificate or their passport it says, born in
Jerusalem, and not in Israel. May I ask why? If I am born in
London it would say, born in England.
Secretary Albright. I think for the same reason, Senator,
because Jerusalem is a final status issue.
Senator Inouye. If not, may I have a response to that?
Secretary Albright. Yes.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Secretary Albright. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Madam Secretary, welcome. I would also like to thank you for taking
the time to testify before this committee. I know you are quite busy
with the situation in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Asian
economic crisis. I have a few questions that I would hope you might be
able to shed some light on.
east-west center
I have been advised that you interceded on behalf of several
important educational and cultural exchange programs to ensure that
they were not zeroed out in the President's Budget Request for fiscal
year 1999. I would like to thank you for your efforts. These programs
most certainly deserve the Administration's full support as they serve
an important bridge between our neighbors in the North and South and
the East and West. I support the increases that two of the programs
received because I believe they play a vital role in our relations with
other countries around the Globe. However, I am concerned that the
third program, the East-West Center, did not receive the same
treatment.
One of the programs received a 40 percent increase in the
President's Budget Request from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. The
other program received a 53 percent increase in the President's Budget
Request from the fiscal year 1998 appropriation. While the East-West
Center received a 58 percent decrease from the fiscal year 1998
appropriation.
It occurs to me that the Asia-Pacific region, the region where the
East-West Center conducts its programs and studies is an area of great
importance to the United States. The most serious multinational
conflicts since World War II have occurred in Asia. The continuing
economic crisis in this region is beginning to negatively impact the
United State's economy. Now is the time to invest more resources not
less.
middle east peace process
The core bargain of the Oslo peace process was that one side would
cede land and political authority and that the other would, once and
for all, renounce terrorism and violence and commit to fighting those
who continued to perpetrate such acts. Since the 1993 start of the
peace process, in fact one side, Israel, has ceded land and political
authority. Today, 27 percent of the West Bank and virtually all of Gaza
are under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority as is
almost 98 percent of the Palestinian population. Yet on the Palestinian
side, violence and terrorism seem to continue to be used as political
tools. You yourself have said that there is no moral equivalence
between bombs and bulldozers; and that the fight against terrorism is
the ``sine qua non'' for progress in the peace process, and that the
fight must be a ``total effort.'' After the recent meetings in
Washington and the Middle East, however, you appear to blame both sides
equally for the current stalemate.
jerusalem
The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act was passed in 1995. It
requires the Administration to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem by May, 1999. May, 1999 is approaching quickly.
aid
The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial thoughts
about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-12 year
goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. The proposal fulfills a
promise made by Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress
in 1996.
united nations
Israel is the only country in the U.N. system denied access to a
regional grouping--the mechanism through which countries are chosen to
sit on the U.N.'s powerful committees, including the Security Council.
Senator Gregg. I would, just following up on the Senator
from Hawaii's comments, we did put the money in last year to
start the design of the Embassy in Jerusalem. We did not do
that because we did not expect it not to be built. We expect it
to be built, and we are going to put in construction money.
That is the policy of the Congress which passed by an
overwhelming--99 to 0 vote in the Senate. So we are going to
continue to pursue that case.
Peace process
On the issue of the peace process and Iraq, since that
topic has been raised even though it may not be specifically
current to this committee's hearing, I do think it is worth
following up on in the sense that during the process of
building up for this confrontation we did not have the support
of Saudi Arabia and Egypt at the levels that we have had it in
the past. Certainly we had it in 1991. And my sense was that
one of the reasons Saudi Arabia and Egypt were not able to come
forward with the aggressive support that we might have wanted,
especially to allow us, in the case of Saudi Arabia, to launch
attacks from that country, was because the peace process has
come to a halt.
It seems to me that as we pursue the policies of this
administration, which is to now try again with Saddam Hussein
and the process of investigating and determining whether or not
he is complying with the U.N. resolutions, that we have a
period when we can rebuild the efforts on the peace process.
I think its reoccurrence is a predictable event, as the
Senator from Colorado has certainly pointed out. Maybe 3 months
from now, maybe 6 months from now, maybe 9 months from now, but
we will be back in a confrontational position with this
individual, but the next time we should have the support of
Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
My question to you is, what are we doing to get the peace
process going again so that in turn we can get the alliance
back, at least as it relates to Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Then I
would follow that with a corollary question, what are we doing
relative to getting the alliance back relative to Turkey, which
is another launching site, so that we can use their facilities?
I do not see how we can ever remove Saddam Hussein if we do not
have the capacity to physically remove him. And we do not have
the capacity to physically remove him if we do not have the
cooperation of the neighboring states for launching
capabilities.
Secretary Albright. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, let me say that 1991 was in many ways simpler because it
was an Arab country invading another Arab country; something
that was unheard of. Therefore, there was an outcry not only
from the world but specifically the Arab countries. We are now
dealing with a much more complicated problem, which is a threat
of future problems rather than an actual concrete act. That is
for one.
Also, what was not, I think, made clear enough was that we
actually had a great deal of support internationally with
countries providing a variety of support, a couple of dozen in
one way or another. Also, the Arab countries were much more
supportive than was evident. I think that we are all aware of
the fact that people speak to different audiences. The Arab
leaders themselves are in the neighborhood with the bully, and,
therefore, they are less likely to be vocal publicly. But we
felt, all of us including Secretary Cohen and General Shelton,
that had we had to use force that we had the cooperation that
was necessary for the kind of strike that was intended. Those
are the facts on that ground.
As far as the Middle East peace process was concerned, 1997
was definitely not a good year for the peace process. For a
variety of reasons, the parties were not willing to make the
tough decisions. The United States, however, was trying to push
the process forward. I visited a number of times and also met
with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in different
places, pushing the process forward. But ultimately, they are
the ones that have to make the hard decisions.
We are going back on that, I can assure you. And whatever
is happening with Saddam Hussein, we would be pushing in terms
of trying to get the parties to make the hard decisions. I
assure you that we will continue to do that. We hope very much
that they will, in fact, make some of those decisions that only
they can make. And we will do other things in terms of
rebuilding alliances.
On Turkey, again I think part of the issue was the
relationship of what actually happened in 1991 versus what is
happening now. We also need to work very hard to bring Turkey
more into the European sphere, and help try to resolve the
problems between Greece and Turkey on the Aegean issues as well
as with Cyprus.
Senator Gregg. I have made my points on that, so I do not
want to spend the entire period discussing that because there
are a lot of issues that we have that relate specifically to
the funding that comes before this committee.
Immigration
Let me start with the question of immigration. It has been
proposed that the State Department take over the activities of
operating the naturalization process under immigration because
of the disaster that the immigration agency pursued and
basically represented over the last 1\1/2\ years. That was the
report that was given to us by an independent commission
evaluating the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS],
recommending that we split the agency, leave Border Patrol and
enforcement with Justice and move the actual operation of the
naturalization over to State. I would be interested in the
State Department's reaction to that report.
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, we were pleased by the
commission's favorable assessment of the Department's consular
operations. Our focus now ought to be on how services are
provided, not on which agency provides them.
The White House Domestic Policy Council is leading the
administration's effort to undertake a review of the
commission's report and to formulate some recommendations. We
have worked closely with the INS for many years and are
prepared to help them in any way that we can as they reexamine
their services and the best way to handle them.
Senator Gregg. This is a huge issue. You are talking about
taking over an agency which would literally double the size, I
suspect, of the operational aspects of the State Department,
both on a personnel level and from a monetary standpoint. So I
really need something more than just a casual statement of what
you are studying. Do you support taking over that sort of
responsibility or do you not?
Secretary Albright. Let me just say this, at this stage we
are not prepared to make an answer, because what is happening
is that there is a study going on. Because you are absolutely
right, this is a huge proposal and the State Department
actually has a lot of things that we are doing also. So I
cannot give you just a glib answer on it because we are still
waiting for the study. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that
we will be working with you very closely on this.
Senator Gregg. It is possible that Congress may act this
year on this issue. In fact it is likely that the Congress will
act this year on this issue. So I suggest you accelerate the
internal operation and the interdepartment operation and get us
back your thoughts on it as soon as possible.
Secretary Albright. I shall do that.
U.N. arrearages
Senator Gregg. On this issue of arrearages for the United
Nations. As you know, I worked very hard on this and we thought
we had the whole deal. We thought we had it put together. We
felt it was a good resolution. We were going to require the
United Nations to meet certain benchmarks. But this did not
fail on our watch. I feel a little bit like the tail clearly
here is wagging the dog. How are we going to get the
administration to settle out with the House Members, who have
the same flexibility this time? There is no question, we are
not going to be able to get the arrearages issue through unless
you folks reach some sort of an accommodation on the Mexico
City issue, which is really just a blip on the old radar screen
compared to what we are talking about here. We cannot move the
U.N. arrearages issue unless the administration is willing to
sit down and seriously resolve that question with these Members
who have the capacity to basically stop the process.
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I weep with you at all
the work that we did on this that went for naught last year. As
I said in my statement, we are paying $100 million a year for
starters for not having done what we should have, and also are
losing a whole lot of influence. Senator Campbell was talking
about countries voting with us. The truth is that our record is
much, much better than it was in the 1980's. But part of our
problem is the fact that we are not there paying fully. The
British are the ones who waited 200 years to say this, but they
said it is representation without taxation. So I think that
that is a genuine problem here for us.
But let me say, there is a solution to this. It is a very
simple solution, and it is the democratic solution. That is
that you vote on the issue of concern. The issue of prochoice
or prolife is a huge issue in the American political scene and
a very legitimate one. People on both sides of this issue feel
very, very strongly. And there are good people on both sides of
this issue. So what needs to happen is it needs to be separated
from national security legislation. It needs to be voted up or
down, as we usually do on issues.
Senator Gregg. No; I have to disagree with you there.
Because the way that Congress works, and you understand it, is
that if you have the numbers in the Senate--and it only takes
40 people--you can stop anything. This issue is really between
the White House and the group of folks who feel strongly on it.
It does seem to me that if the White House and the group of
folks sat down and resolved it, that is the way to get it
going. There is no way to move this issue legislatively until
there has been resolution.
Secretary Albright. I think that because this is an issue
of principle to both sides, it is harder to compromise on it. I
think that there has been misunderstanding about what some of
the compromises suggested last year really would have done.
First of all, I think people should understand that no taxpayer
money goes for promoting abortions.
Senator Gregg. I do not want to remake the case here.
Secretary Albright. No; but I am just telling you that the
compromises are compromises that basically are huge issues to
both sides.
Senator Gregg. There has to be a balancing. Somebody down
there has to decide, is it more important to have the U.N.
arrearages, or is it more important to get the last T crossed
and the last I dotted on the issue of Mexico City? I do not
want to get into the specifics of the debate because that could
take us the balance of our lifetime it appears, but I am just
telling you that we are not going to get this U.N. arrearages
issue moving unless we can resolve that issue.
Did you have further questions, Senator Campbell? We will
go around again.
Senator Campbell. Yes; I do not want to talk about
abortion, I will tell you that.
UNSCOM observers
I wanted to have you clarify something for me. Under the
original agreement in 1991, Iraq guaranteed, as I understood
it, unfettered access to the UNSCOM observers. I guess they
defined what that meant--it is a matter of semantics--and they
closed off the palaces. Would you tell me, Madam Secretary, the
observers that are going to go with UNSCOM, what decisionmaking
process will they go through? Do they have the authority to
refuse UNSCOM's ability to inspect these so-called palaces now?
Secretary Albright. Under what they signed they do not have
the authority. Let me make something clear. This is the first
time that Saddam Hussein has said unfettered, unconditional
access to all sites. So that is for starters. They now have the
authority, the UNSCOM inspectors, to go in. Whether he will
allow them or not is the question.
Senator Campbell. Basically then what is the job of the
observers that are going to watch UNSCOM?
Secretary Albright. They are basically going to have eyes
moving in both directions. Which is they will watch to see if
the Iraqis are actually allowing these various inspections to
go on.
They also will be there with the UNSCOM inspectors. But
they cannot stop the UNSCOM inspectors from doing anything.
They are there as observers and UNSCOM will continue to have
operational control, deciding when to go in and what kind of an
inspection to do. So they will observe.
Senator Campbell. I thank you for that clarification.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We do have a vote on. I know that Senator
Mikulski has a couple points she wants to make, but let me just
say that I do not want to keep you here through votes.
There are a couple issues that we do need some more
information on. No. 1, the Beijing Embassy. I cannot understand
how we are going to spend $200 million to build these
facilities. We could probably rebuild the Capitol for $200
million. Somehow we have to get more specifics on that and get
control over that so we do not end up with something like the
Reagan Building.
The year 2000 issue, which you alluded to, is a big issue
which we need to get some more information on. And I also want
to talk to you at some point about language study. Obviously
your expansion in the area of capital activity is something
this committee basically initiated for next year in the area of
acquisition of technology. We are very committed to that. I
want to go over some of those specifics, too. But I do not want
to tie you up here all day.
Secretary Albright. We will get you answers on all of
those, Senators.
Senator Gregg. Barbara.
Russian scientific community relationship
Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, I will not keep you.
There is one area that I would like to be able to pursue,
perhaps not at this hearing with the vote. But I am concerned
about the issue of Russian missile technology specialists being
in Iran, and the whole issue of the United States' relationship
with the Russian scientific community.
Let me be clear. I am a strong supporter of the space
station, and under the administration we moved to include the
Russians in the space station and supported that, for two
reasons: their technical expertise and their contribution to a
scientific mission, and also that the missile technologists
would be involved with the Americans in civilian-based
technology and not selling their expertise around the world.
They now are fading in meeting their responsibilities to the
space station. For those of us who fund NASA, we are deeply
concerned about that. You need to be aware of it. That could
sink the space station this year.
Russian missile technology specialists
No. 2, we are concerned then that their missile
technologists are going around the world, and the most notable
now is their involvement in Iran. We would like to know where
they are, what they are doing, and what are we doing to bring
them back into, one, their agreement on the space station and
really meeting their responsibilities. And No. 2, that they are
not exacerbating this proliferation of not only making weapons
of mass destruction, but developing the technology to deliver
it.
Now we were a lot on Iraq today, but no conversation about
Iran. I am not sanguine about Iran, and I am also not sanguine
about the Russian involvement. So perhaps we could talk with
your team about that, unless you wanted to comment now?
Secretary Albright. Let me say that the issue of Russian
relations with Iran on missile technology is something that
concerns us a great deal. Whether it is in conversations that
President Clinton has with President Yeltsin, or Vice President
Gore with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, or I with the foreign
minister, this is a subject of constant discussion.
We developed a good channel to deal with a lot of these
problems and the Russians have, in fact, now put out an
executive order to limit transfers. We are looking to see how
all that is being carried out. There is a review process in
place and it will be the subject when the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission meets in March.
I think this is a key problem. It is very difficult,
actually, with pieces of equipment. It is obviously even more
difficult when people are involved. So we need to focus on it
more and more. The major threat of the 21st century is the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, whether it is
internally here as you mentioned or countries or people. We are
focusing on this in the most intense way and are dealing with
it on a case-by-case basis.
But I agree with you, there has to be a more concerted
effort on it, especially in the people part. The people part is
very difficult because of the knowledge that people have in
their heads, which is harder to monitor. We will work with you
on that.
Senator Mikulski. Let us keep working on it.
Secretary Albright. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. I also need to mention that we do want to do
some followup questions on protecting family members and also,
obviously, people who are working at the various delegations
around the world from terrorist acts, and our concern about
making sure that we give their families adequate protection.
I will be submitting questions for Senator Lautenberg and
Senator Domenici.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
united nations conference on the law of the sea [unclos]
Question. Since the beginning of this year, representatives for the
State Department and the Department of Defense have met with a number
of Senate offices to discuss the United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) and to encourage Senate advice and consent to
UNCLOS.
Madame Secretary, for the record, I would appreciate your
explanation of the implications for the United States delaying in
becoming a party to UNCLOS. I would also appreciate your estimate of
the costs associated with being a party to UNCLOS. Lastly, I would
appreciate any brief responses that you may have to other common
concerns that have been expressed about UNCLOS in recent years, such as
seabed mining concerns.
Answer. The Administration has placed the Law of the Sea Convention
on its treaty priority list in the highest category of treaties for
which it believes there is urgent need for Senate approval. A
comprehensive and widely accepted Law of the Sea Convention has been an
important and bipartisan objective of United States foreign policy
throughout the last several decades. The Convention advances the
interests of the United States as a coastal nation and as a global
maritime power.
In 1999, I signed an agreement on deep seabed mining which
addressed satisfactorily each of the concerns that led to the United
States decision in 1982 not to sign the Convention. One hundred and
twenty-four governments, including all major OECD countries, are now
Parties. Becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention will provide
us with an important tool to protect our national security and other
ocean interests.
Non-accession by the U.S. would undermine U.S. leadership in
pursuing market-oriented approaches to deep seabed mining activity as
well as in protecting the substantial precedent setting gains we have
made through weighted decision making. Nonaccession by the U.S. may
also inadvertently push U.S. companies to overseas operations. It is
important to note that under the 1994 Agreement, the United States is a
provisional member in the International Seabed Authority until November
16, 1998. But that provisional membership, and our ability to
participate in drafting the rules and regulations governing deep seabed
mining will expire if we are not a Party by November.
The costs of participation are low. The Convention establishes two
institutions:
International Seabed Authority (ISA).--The 1998 budget for
Authority amounts to $4.8 million, about half of which pays for
Conference servicing expenses for the meetings that are drafting the
mining code. The United States share of this amount is $1.2 million. In
addition, the U.S. is responsible for 24 percent or $49,000 of the
$196,000 Working Capital Fund. We do not anticipate that the budget for
the Authority will need to increase in any substantial amount for the
next few years, and the Authority has already reduced the length of its
meetings in an effort to keep costs to a minimum.
The ISA is responsible for administering the regime governing
mineral resource development in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The
U.S. obtained substantial concessions in the area of weighted voting to
assure a voice commensurate with the investment made by U.S. companies.
U.S. mining consortia invested nearly $400 million in developing deep
seabed mining technology and the U.S. is interested in protecting this
investment. The 1994 Agreement successfully addresses the issues raised
in the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which called for
interim arrangements pending a global agreement. We are confident that
the ISA will assure non-discriminatory access for U.S. citizens, under
reasonable terms and conditions that do not impose significant new
economic burdens.
The ISA has successfully established a decision making arm of the
Authority, known as the Council. Substantive decisions are made by a
chambered voting arrangement, the effect of which is to allow the
United States and two other industrialized countries acting in concert
to block decisions. The United States was elected to the Consumer
Chamber of the Council. The United States was also elected to the 15
member Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over all budgetary and
financial matters and must decide on issues by consensus. Unless we
join the Convention, however, this participation is available only
until November, 1998.
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.--This Tribunal which
is located in Hamburg, Germany, opened for business on October 1, 1996.
It has decided its first case and is currently working on a second
case. The budget for the Tribunal is approximately $6.2 million for
calendar year 1998. The U.S. share would be approximately $1.5 million.
Again, we would not expect this number to increase substantially in the
out years.
u.n. studies/projects on firearms
Question. With regard to the work of the United Nations studies now
proceeding through: (i) the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice; and (ii) a panel established out of the New York U.N.
headquarters entitled the ``Panel of Government Experts on Small
Arms''; and (iii) the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
(``UNIDR'') project and study on light weapons controls, please fully
explain the U.S. role regarding each study or project, and whether or
not the U.S. supports financially or otherwise U.N. efforts to regulate
civilian ownership of firearms on a global level.
Answer. A fundamental underlying premise to U.S. participation in
all matters relating to firearms is that the U.S. will not support or
accede to any agreement which conflicts with U.S. domestic law. In all
matters involving firearms, the U.S. position is that civilian
ownership of firearms is a domestic issue for each country to decide.
The U.S. interest in firearms from a global perspective is to prevent
illicit trafficking in firearms by criminals and by criminal
organizations.
The U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice has
held several regional workshops in which the U.S., as well as U.S. non-
governmental organizations, participated. The U.S. is considering how
the product from those workshops can best be applied to the problem of
illicit trafficking in firearms by criminals and criminal
organizations, in a manner that does not conflict with U.S. domestic
law.
The U.S. did participate in the Panel of Government Experts on
Small Arms, which produced a consensus report last summer. The U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency provided the U.S. expert. The
Panel's recommendations dealt with measures to reduce the excessive and
destabilizing accumulations and transfers of small arms and light
weapons in specific regions of the world where such accumulations and
transfers had already taken place, and measures to prevent such
destabilizing accumulations and transfers in the future. Many of the
specific measures recommended by the Panel relate to proposed national
and international efforts to address illegal trafficking.
The U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) is an
independent research arm of the U.N. supported by voluntary
contributions. It is based in Geneva and supported by U.N. member
states' voluntary contributions and foundation grants. UNIDIR recently
completed a multi-year study on Disarmament and Conflict Resolution
(DCR) focusing on the experiences of eleven multilateral peace
operations missions under the auspices of the U.N. or regional
organizations in managing and controlling arms in the possession of
warring parties (e.g., Somalia, Angola, Liberia, Cambodia, El Salvador,
former Yugoslavia). The results of the project were published in a
series of UNIDIR publications.
Additionally, I would note that the U.S. participated in
negotiating the first international instrument to combat illicit
trafficking in firearms by criminals in the Organization of American
States. The U.S. worked closely with U.S. non-governmental
organizations throughout these negotiations to insure that U.S.
domestic policies were fairly reflected in this international
instrument.
ukraine
Question. Has the Ukrainian Government reformed its trade policies
as conditioned in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations bill? If not, do you think the release of the remaining
$225 million for fiscal year 1998 to the Ukrainian Government is
warranted?
Answer. The Foreign Operations Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year
1998 required that we withhold approximately half of the $225 million
earmarked for Ukraine unless I certified that Ukraine had made
significant progress toward resolving investor complaints. On April 29,
1998, I decided to certify that the Government of Ukraine has made
significant progress toward resolving U.S. investor complaints. We have
worked very closely with the Government of Ukraine over the past year
to push for resolution of investor complaints, including the twelve
specific complaints covered by the legislation. Seven of the cases were
resolved or there was significant progress toward their resolution.
Since I announced my decision to certify, the Government of Ukraine
has continued to work with us to resolve the remaining cases, and we
continue to make progress.
We remain concerned, however, about the remaining investor
problems, and more generally about Ukraine's poor investment climate
and the slow pace of economic reform. In conjunction with my decision
to certify I directed the withholding of certain assistance funds to
the Government of Ukraine in areas where reforms have stalled and such
assistance cannot be used effectively. These funds will be redirected
to the private and non-governmental sectors in Ukraine unless the
Government of Ukraine implements the necessary reforms in these sectors
and takes additional steps to resolve outstanding business cases in
Ukraine.
ukraine minimum customs values
Question. Do you agree that minimum customs valuation is
specifically prohibited under the WTO? Do you believe the Ukrainian
Government is singling out products of specific U.S. companies by brand
name, and valuing the products of those companies at amounts greater
than similar products for other countries? Is this type of practice
GATT legal or acceptable to the U.S. Government?
Answer. Imposition of a minimal customs valuation not based on the
actual value of the product is specifically prohibited under Article 7
of the WTO. Because Ukraine is not yet a member of the WTO, it is not
legally required to adhere to the Article 7 requirement. However,
Ukraine is pursuing negotiations to join the WTO, and is expected in
that process to follow WTO guidelines as closely as possible and
implement WTO norms and procedures. We have urged Ukraine to implement
the WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation, which is a transparent, rules-
based regime.
We have raised these concerns with the Government of Ukraine, both
in the context of WTO accession negotiations and in bilateral trade
talks, and we will continue to do so. We are especially concerned that
Ukraine has applied minimum customs values in ways that are
discriminatory and harm U.S. products.
ukraine
Question. What actions do you plan to take to let the Ukrainian
Government know of the State Department's concerns with these or other
Ukrainian trade policies?
Answer. During my March 6 visit to Kiev, I met with a group
representing the U.S. business community in Ukraine, including a number
of businesses that have raised with the U.S. Government problems they
are having in Ukraine, such as Gala Radio and R&J Trading. The
businessmen reviewed for me both company-specific problems and broader
systemic obstacles to doing business in Ukraine.
Earlier during my visit to Kiev, I raised with President Kuchma our
concern over the treatment of U.S. businesses and investors. I
emphasized the need for vigorous, effective action to improve the
investment climate.
We will continue to pursue this issue energetically with the
Ukrainian government.
state's performance goals
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. We structured the Performance Plan with an explicit link
between strategic goals and performance goals. There is not, however,
the same direct connection to the account and activity structure in the
budget justification. Given the difficulties of linking the existing
budget structure to our strategic goals, this is unavoidable. Each goal
is supported by several appropriations, and each appropriation supports
multiple goals. Our ultimate objective is to identify both the
appropriations and the dollar amount they contribute to the specific
goals. The Congressional Presentation for the fiscal year 1999
international affairs (Function 150) budget links resources, including
State's, to the international affairs strategic goals by region. This
is a first step toward performance budgeting.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance measures to its
budget?
Answer. We are linking our budget activities to our performance
goals, not the other way around. In the Performance Plan, we have
listed the appropriations supporting each strategic goal. Please see
also the answer to the previous question.
Question. Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Most Department of State accounts have performance measures
which are discussed in State's fiscal year 1999 Congressional
Presentation Document. As described above, we structured the overall
Performance Plan with an explicit link between strategic goals and
performance goals.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. The structure of the Performance Plan does not directly
link to the account and activity structure in the budget justification.
As mentioned in the answer above, we structured the Performance Plan
with an explicit link between strategic goals and performance goals.
Given the differences between the existing budget structure and our
strategic goals, it is difficult to link them directly.
Question. Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
account structure for fiscal year 2000, although this is an issue we
will want to discuss with the appropriate committees.
Question. Will you propose any changes to the program activities
described under that account structure? How were performance measures
chosen?
Answer. As mentioned in the previous answer above, we have no plans
at this time to propose changes to program activities or the account
structure for fiscal year 2000, although this is an issue we will want
to discuss with the appropriate committees.
The team charged with drafting the Performance Plan formulated the
original performance measures, using the individual performance plans
State bureaus prepared last year and other information prepared more
recently by the bureaus for the CPD. The team referred the entire draft
Performance Plan on two separate occasions to all bureaus for their
review and advice. In many cases the performance measures were refined
based on the comments team received.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Answer. To avoid imposing new reporting burdens on bureaus, the
team charged with drafting the Performance Plan sought to identify
indicators that were based on data or information already collected by
the Department itself, other agencies, or non-governmental
organizations. As mentioned in the previous answer above, the team
referred the entire draft Performance Plan on two separate occasions to
all bureaus for their review and advice. In many cases the measures and
indicators were refined based on the comments the team received.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Most of our performance measures are based on qualitative
assessments, not quantitative results. We believe that for now they and
the data upon which they depend are adequate, representing as they do
our first attempt to create a performance plan. We do not, however,
consider them satisfactory for the long term. We will continue to
assess how we can improve both our performance measures and their data.
In fact, we are developing a software tool that will help gather data
along strategic and diplomatic readiness categories. We welcome the
assistance of OMB and the Congress in this difficult undertaking.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. Our preference would be for the subcommittee to track the
whole Performance Plan during the appropriations process as a good way
to review State's performance on the range of its responsibilities for
conducting U.S. foreign policy. Short of that, we would suggest
focusing on the performance goals from one or two of the seven national
interests, such as ``national security'' and ``American citizens and
border security.''
Question. For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider
it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measures (``how
well'').
Answer. We have tried throughout the course of our strategic
planning effort to focus on outcomes and not outputs. In preparing the
Performance Plan, we made a conscious effort to emphasize specific
fiscal year 1999 actions that will produce outcomes. It is of course,
impossible to exclude all reference to output measures, which include
matters as important and diverse as passport issuance and demining
operations.
Question. State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and
objective from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual goal is
linked.
Answer. We derived the performance goals directly from the
International Affairs Strategic Plan, which sets out the national
interests and long-range goals we are pursuing in international affairs
on behalf of the security, prosperity, and values of the American
people. The Performance Plan clearly identifies which strategic goal
each performance goal supports.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Please see the answers to previous two questions above.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. We have alerted responsible managers to the need for
employees to understand the Performance Plan's contents, especially
those areas for which they have primary responsibility; for bureaus to
have the baseline information in place against which progress will be
measured; and for bureaus and employees to be prepared when fiscal year
1999 begins to collect the data necessary to track and document
performance throughout the year. This is, however, a new way for us to
operate. We cannot state conclusively one way or the other how well or
quickly we will be able to report on performance throughout the year.
Our focus with systems in the immediate future is to ensure they are
Year 2000 compliant.
Question. If so, who has access to the information--senior
management only, or mid- and lower-level program managers too?
Answer. The Performance Plan is built from individual Bureau
Performance Plans. We are relying on mid- and lower-level managers as
well as senior management to take primary responsibility for building
and carrying out their own plans. They originated and have access to
the available performance information.
Question. Are you able to gain access easily to various
performance-related data located throughout your various information
systems?
Answer. Tracking our progress against a Performance Plan represents
a new way for the Department of State to operate. We do not yet know
how easily we will be able to access and report performance-related
data.
government performance and results act
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty? Would the linkages be
clearer if your budget account structure were modified?
Answer. In the Performance Plan, we have listed the appropriations
supporting each strategic goal. There is not a one-to-one correlation
between goals and appropriations. Each goal is supported by several
appropriations, and each appropriation supports multiple goals. Our
ultimate objective is to identify both the appropriations and the
dollar amount they contribute to the specific goal, although completing
that objective is still some years away. Until we have some more
experience in linking dollars to results, we are not planning to
propose changes to the account structure.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modification would be more useful both to your agency and
to this committee than the present structure?
Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
account structure.
Question. How would such modifications strengthen accountability
for program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. At this time, we have no plans to propose changes to the
account structure.
managerial cost accounting
Question. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. The Department of State has begun to identify actions
needed to comply with Managerial Cost Accounting requirements. The
Department's Strategic Plan under the Government Performance and
Results Act has been finalized and the Department is working on the
methodologies to assess achievement of Department goals and objectives
under the plan. Price Waterhouse has been retained to provide an
assessment of the work required to implement the Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standard Number 4, ``Managerial Cost Accounting
Standards and Concepts for the Federal Government.'' Concurrent with
this initiative, cost accounting requirements are being incorporated
into the Resource and Budget Integration Tool (RABIT) which will be
used to identify cost data for future budget presentations; the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS)
system for inter-agency support functions at the post level; the
Central Financial Management System; and integrated feeder systems that
support our centrally managed financial management and program
management needs. The Department has not determined if it will use
Activity Based Costing.
measuring activity costs
Question. Will you be able in the future to show this committee the
full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including in
those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits, and
depreciation?
Answer. As cost accounting requirements become fully integrated
into Department systems and management process, the Department will be
able to accurately identify the costs of individual programs and
activities. Current systems and data capabilities are heavily stressed
and the Department's primary focus is on year 2000 compliance. As part
of our initiative to implement the Federal Financial Management
Improvement Act, the Department will implement standard cost accounting
data structures and capabilities that will meet the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program system requirements as well as the
Statement of Federal Financial Management Number 4 ``Managerial Cost
Accounting Standards and Concepts for the Federal Government.''
measuring program performance
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true cost
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. The Department's initiatives under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic planning process and the
implementation of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
under the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) are
directed at determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Department of State identified programs and activities. Budget and
other performance targets will be established under the strategic
planning process and the Department plans to measure performance.
However, precise measurement of our programs may still be many years
away given the condition of our current systems and logistical problems
around the world.
government performance and results act
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. We have made a good start with strategic planning and
performance measurement in the past 18 months, but we are still far
from having a fully functioning performance planning system. We have
made great progress in creating an effective planning system by
developing software that distributes resources (both people and money)
by strategic goal, and by revamping annual Mission and Bureau Program
Plans. Our performance measures are embryonic, and we are in the first
year of associating dollars with goals. Developing a solid set of
performance measures and indicators for our complex activities will
take a good deal of effort and will entail close coordination with
other agencies. We expect that the experience gained in the next
several years as we refine our strategic planning and implement the
fiscal year 1999 Performance Plan will better position us to take
actual performance into account in making resource decisions.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making estimates for
certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of
resource estimates?
Answer. We have made great progress in creating an effective
planning system by developing software that distributes resources (both
people and money) by strategic goal, and by revamping the annual
Mission and Bureau Program Plans. We are still far from having a fully
functioning performance planning system, however. Our performance
measures are embryonic, and we are in the first year of associating
dollars with goals. In addition, we are continuing to develop and
refine data sources and baselines against which to measure progress.
Developing a solid set of performance measures and indicators for our
complex activities will take a good deal of effort and will entail
close coordination with other agencies. We expect that the experience
gained in the next several years as we implement the fiscal year 1999
Performance Plan will allow us to make better estimates of funding
requirements to achieve desired results and take actual performance
into account when making resource decisions.
state's performance goals
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. Our experience with the Performance Plan does not suggest
any need for a substantive revision to the Department of State
Strategic Plan we submitted last September. We do intend to refine the
International Affairs Strategic Plan based on feedback we have received
since its release. This will in turn result in some adjustments to the
State Strategic Plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
certification decisions
Question. Could you provide the Committee with an idea of how the
State Department reaches its decision to recommend that the President
certify a particular country?
Answer. In the fall, the Department of State's Bureau for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) reviews and
revises the ``majors'' list as appropriate. The list is based on the
previous spring's ``International Narcotics Control and Strategy
Report'' (INCSR)--produced by INL--and from other U.S. government
sources. This proposed list is then cleared within the State Department
and coordinated with other interested agencies. The Secretary transmits
the proposed list to the President, who makes the final decisions
regarding the list. The White House then transmits the ``majors'' list
to the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, House
International Relations Committee, and the respective appropriations
committees. The due date for the ``majors'' list is November 1.
Between December and mid-February, the INL Assistant Secretary
coordinates an interagency decision-making process to recommend whether
countries should be certified fully based on their counternarcotics
performance, denied certification, or granted a vital national
interests certification. These recommendations are then presented to
the Secretary of State for her consideration. By mid-February, the
Secretary sends her recommendations to the President.
u.s. law enforcement agencies and certification
Question. What role do U.S. law enforcement agencies play in the
certification process?
Answer. The Departments of Justice and Treasury, as well as other
agencies involved in foreign counternarcotics law enforcement efforts
(such as the U.S. Coast Guard), provide much of the information used in
the certification process. These law enforcement agencies participate
in the interagency discussion and recommendation process beginning with
the development of criteria and continuing through the analysis of
performance leading to the Secretary's certification recommendations to
the President.
mexico drug certification
Question. How many man-hours did the State Department spend this
year on the Mexico certification decision?
Answer. We do not have a tracking mechanism for hours spent by
individual Department of State personnel on specific issues, such as
certification. We take the certification process very seriously and
many people--from desk officers and support staff to the Secretary of
State--are involved.
Our staff members spend considerable time conducting research,
analyzing data, preparing statistical summaries, consulting with other
agencies, drafting, clearing and editing the International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report, preparing Congressional testimony, answering
inquiries from the Congress and the media, and so forth. Department
principals actively participate in reviewing the findings, making
recommendations, and, ultimately, implementing the President's
decisions. Considerably more time is invested, however, in establishing
the benchmarks or criteria for certification, preparing and conducting
demarches and follow-up meetings with foreign government officials,
providing program support to other governments to aid them in reaching
these objectives, and reporting on the results.
Because of the complexity of the drug situation in Mexico, and the
fact that its anti-drug effort is so crucial to the success of our own
national effort, more ``man-hours'' are probably spent on the Mexico
review than any country other than perhaps Colombia.
improving the certification process
Question. What are your views on the best way to improve the
certification process? Is the process fatally flawed, or can you offer
Congress a way to fix it?
Answer. The State Department has already implemented a number of
procedural changes to the certification process which are specifically
designed to improve cooperation and reduce acrimony on key narcotics
control objectives. The new mechanisms in place are designed to draw
upon the wide expertise of our intelligence and law enforcement
communities to ensure that the governments of these countries have a
sense of ownership for key counternarcotics objectives.
From the overseas perspective, we are keeping our embassies and
host governments abroad engaged from the start in the certification
process. Through our embassies, we have redoubled diplomatic efforts to
engage host governments actively in finding the best means to meet our
certification objectives. As the lead agency in the certification
process, the Department is also reviewing the law for possible
recommendations to improve it.
Moreover, we are making a greater effort to utilize multilateral
mechanisms such as the OAS drug body (known by the Spanish acronym
CICAD) and the United Nations to advance certification goals, which
are, after all, tied to the 1988 U.N. Drug Convention.
multilateral drug treaty
Question. Do you support the notion of a multilateral drug treaty
for the Western Hemisphere? If so, would the treaty involve supply
reduction, demand reduction or both? How would such a treaty be
enforced?
Answer. The Department of State does not support the notion of a
multilateral drug treaty for the Western Hemisphere. We believe that
the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (the ``Vienna Convention''), to which
all the countries in the Western Hemisphere are parties, provides an
adequate framework for establishing international obligations for
narcotics control. The Vienna Convention addresses the entire range of
drug issues from supply reduction to demand reduction, including
related matters such as money laundering, asset forfeiture, controlling
precursor chemicals, extradition, and judicial assistance.
The Department, however, does support the need for enhanced
multilateral cooperation to overcome some of the limitations associated
with bilateral antidrug efforts. Accordingly, we have proposed, and the
countries of the hemisphere have endorsed, the idea of creating a
multilateral counternarcotics monitoring and evaluation mechanism in
the hemisphere. Among other objectives, the mechanism could be used to
assess compliance with the Vienna Convention, strengths and weaknesses
in antidrug programs, and where assistance could best be focused. This
mechanism can be established without resorting to a treaty and we are
working with all the countries in the hemisphere through the good
offices of the OAS's Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
(CICAD) to develop this concept. This mechanism would not replace our
most effective bilateral initiatives, but could go a long way towards
filling some of the gaps they do not cover.
overall budget request
Question. The Budget Request for 1999 asks for $1.3 billion more
than this level [$18.6 billion] even excluding the arrears to these
organizations [e.g., U.N.] and the IMF supplemental request. Since the
Administration agreed to the $18.6 billion level in 1999 and made this
level a priority, why is the Administration now asking for $1.3 billion
more?
Answer. We share your interest in economy, and we continue to press
our international affairs budget for efficiencies.
At the same time, our highest priority is to look after American
interests abroad. This budget represents an appeal for bipartisan
consensus to provide the funding we need to defend U.S. interests in
the world.
Our interests are changing in important ways. They are becoming
more complicated and they are touching the lives of more and more
Americans.
Our International Affairs Strategic Plan is the definitive guide to
how we are serving America's interests and how we are spending the
funds we receive from Congress:
Protecting the national security interests of the country.--This
includes an approximate increase of $175 million for Bosnia. Last
year's agreement assumed that our role would diminish. This is not yet
possible.
This category also includes an increase of approximately $85
million to promote political and economic reform in NIS countries to
ensure that we do not slip back into nuclear confrontation.
Promoting America's prosperity.--Exports are an increase pillar of
our prosperity. A portion of the $150 million increase in funding for
Africa will promote trade. Part of the $41 million increase for the
Peace Corps will also help develop new markets over the long term.
Protecting American citizens abroad and defending America's
borders.--This is an ongoing priority for everyone at the State
Department.
Protecting Americans from international narcotics trafficking,
terrorism, and crime.--Our request includes a modest $41 million
increase building on our recent successes in the Andes.
Promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.--Part of
the Africa increase will also support this goal. Other funding
increases in many regions support this goal.
Providing humanitarian assistance.--A good portion of the $125
million increase in NADR funding will enhance our demining initiatives
around the world.
Combating disease, environmental destruction, and excessive
population growth.--This is part of our work in all regional areas. I
look for it to receive even higher strategic and budgetary priority in
the years ahead.
In addition, our budget request includes an approximate increase of
$412 million for diplomatic activities and infrastructure to support
work toward all our goals. We have urgent funding requirements of $250
million for the construction of new embassy buildings in Berlin and
Beijing. We also face major expenditures to make our computers year-
2000 compliant.
I urge the Congress to provide the funding we need to defend
American interests in an increasingly complex world, as it did last
year. We ask for the minimum we need to keep our country safe and
prosperous. We must lead in making the world a better place for our own
good.
arrearages to international copper study
Question. Madame Secretary, I was recently concerned to learn that
the State Department remains in arrears on dues the United Sates must
pay to participate in certain international organizations. On February
13, I wrote to the Assistant Secretary for International Organizations
to urge the Department to honor its participation in the International
Copper Study Group. My information is that the U.S. Government is
$9,950 in arrears on its 1997 dues, and that in January it received its
assessment of $60,000 for 1998 dues.
The United States is scheduled to chair the International Copper
Study Group this coming year, but if our dues are not current, the
chairman will have to step down from his post and the U.S. will lose
its voting rights with eventual expulsion from the group.
Has the State Department paid the $9,950 in arrears for the 1997
dues for U.S. participation in the International Copper Study Group?
Answer. Due to a shortfall of funding in 1997 of approximately $85
million, we were regretfully forced to cut funding for virtually all
international organizations including the International Copper Study
Group (ICSG).
Our fiscal year 1997 arrears to the ICSG total approximately
$12,000. Our recent payment of our 1998 assessment ensures our full
participation in the activities of the ICSG until June 30, 1999.
Legislation to pay our arrears did not pass the Congress last year and
is still pending. We are currently exploring whether we have the
authority, and sufficient funds to pay our arrears to the ICSG.
Question. Madame Secretary, in the conference report accompanying
the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations
bill, the conferees highlighted their concern about these arrears, and
``agreed that the Department of State should take action to maintain
the U.S. Government's vote in these organizations and should
expeditiously submit a reprogramming to pay off shortfalls, if
necessary.''
Has the Department prepared a reprogramming request to address the
arrears for the International Copper Study Group and organizations in a
similar situation?
Answer. No, the State Department has not yet prepared a
reprogramming request to address the arrears for the International
Copper Study Group and organizations in a similar situation. Since we
have been unable to secure an arrears funding package from the
Congress, we must examine whether we have the authority to pay arrears
under current legislation and to see if there are sufficient funds to
reprogram monies from within the current fiscal year budget.
Question. If not, how does the Department intend to satisfy the
arrears for the Copper Study Group?
Answer. We are currently reviewing the issue and would hope to make
a proposal on this matter in the near future.
Question. The conferees on the 1998 bill also provided funding
equal to the latest estimate of the cost of assessments for U.S.
participation in international organizations provided by the State
Department. The conferees expected this amount to be sufficient to
fully fund current year assessments for U.S. membership in these
organizations.
What is the Department's intention with the payment of the 1998
dues for the Copper Study Group now owing $60,000?
Answer. The Department recently paid, in full, its 1998 assessment
to the International Copper Study Group.
Question. Does the Administration intend to honor its commitment to
participate in these international organizations by paying its share of
the dues?
Answer. The President is committed to paying our assessments in
full as demonstrated by the fiscal year 1999 budget request and paying
our arrears to international organizations as demonstrated by the
fiscal year 1998 supplemental request. Our ability to pay our share of
the dues depends on full funding of the President's request which is
based on estimated assessments.
bosnia funding
Question. Do you believe the American people will continue
supporting the U.S. presence in Bosnia or Iraq or the next country in
crisis if the world also looks to us to pay a major share of the costs?
Answer. The American people will continue to support U.S.
engagement in regions such as Bosnia and Iraq because they understand
we have strong strategic interests in these regions.
We are gratified by the support we have received from nations
around the world.
Our European allies are shouldering a significantly larger part of
the burden than the U.S., in terms of money and troops, in the
international effort to promote peace and stability in Bosnia.
Our allies and partners in many parts of the world do share the
burden of costs and risks. We will continue this policy but we will
also judge when our own nation's interests require intervention.
funding the world's security needs
Question. Is the U.S. responsible for funding the world's security
needs?
Answer. Each year, the President submits as part of budget Function
150 a request for international security assistance. The level of
funding requested--$6.158 billion in fiscal year 1999--reflects the
amount needed to assist our friends and allies in addressing those
requirements that help improve not only their security, but also that
of the United States. The assistance we provide through the Foreign
Military Financing (FMF) program, peacekeeping operations (PKO) funds,
the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, the
Economic Support Fund (ESF), and the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism,
Demining and Related (NADR) programs account are the tools used to do
this. These accounts fund programs which, among other things, develop
stable bilateral and multilateral security relations; help prevent,
manage, and diffuse regional tensions; prevent and resolve crises;
promote regional cooperation; and help prevent the spread of weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems. Our international security
assistance funds are designed to meet only those discrete needs that
the Administration deems to be in the U.S. national interest.
middle east peace process
Question. Could you discuss the military balance in the region, and
how the efforts by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya to get weapons of mass
destruction factor into that? What more can we do with Israel to
bolster its qualitative edge?
Answer. We remain very concerned about the large imbalance in the
size and military capabilities of Iraq and Iran compared to those of
our friends in the Gulf. Having militaries many times larger than those
of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Iran and Iraq are in a
position to use their forces or to threaten that use to apply strong
coercive pressures contrary to U.S. interests. The presence of U.S.
forces in the region and the strong cooperative relationship with the
United States, including strong military sales and training programs,
are essential elements in helping the Gulf states resist such coercion,
and in also ensuring the security of other friends in the region, such
as Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The prospect of the acquisition of weapons
of mass destruction by Iran and Iraq, and by others such as Libya and
Syria, would materially affect the regional balance contrary to U.S.
interests across the entire region and would strengthen the coercive
pressures any of these states could bring countries friendly to the
U.S. beyond it. We are also concerned prospect of Syrian acquisition of
could have on the Middle East peace.
We are committed to doing all we can to help reduce the real threat
posed to Israel and our other regional partners by WMD and advanced
delivery systems. The United States helps Israel meet this threat as
part of our commitment to Israel's security and to sustaining military
edge. The U.S. helps Israel address strategic threats through a
combination of actions and policies, including provision of $1.8
billion annually to Israel for defense. Our active role in the Middle
East Peace Process seeks, in part, to enhance Israel's security by
reducing the regional threat and promoting dialogue. We are also
involved with Israel in joint research projects to develop weapons
systems, such as the Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile system and
the Tactical High Energy Laser, to counter the missile threat. The
administration's nonproliferation and export control policies also
serve to enhance the security of Israel and our other regional partners
by seeking to control the spread of dangerous weapons and technologies
in the Middle East and throughout the world.
We are committed to continuing to support and cooperate with Israel
on security matters in order to preserve Israel's qualitative military
edge and to reduce the serious threat posed by WMD and missile systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
goals of military strike against iraq
Question. What exactly do we expect to achieve by launching such an
attack?
Answer. The goals of air strikes would have been to diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and reduce
Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors. Although military operations
could not have destroyed the entire WMD program, they would have left
the program significantly worse off.
Question. If the U.N. settlement does break down and the U.S.
launches an air strike against Iraq, what will be the comprehensive
exit strategy to ensure not only Iraqi UNSCOM compliance, but also to
ensure that this operation does not turn into another Bosnia? How then
do we sell such an attack to the American people?
Answer. I would prefer not to speculate about the details of
military operations we might undertake if Iraq interferes with UNSCOM
inspections in the future. If air strikes alone were directed against
Iraq, the exit strategy needed would be very different than if ground
forces were also involved.
We will continue our long standing military cooperation with our
Gulf allies. Our concern for the security of the nations of the Gulf is
ongoing. Our forces will remain deployed there at currently augmented
levels so long as they are needed to ensure Iraqi compliance with the
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. Once Iraqi compliance is
assured, we will consider whether we can reduce the augmented level of
forces deployed in the Gulf.
We believe that a majority of the American people would have
supported air strikes, had the President ordered them. We continue to
believe that the American people would support air strikes in the
future, should they become necessary.
Question. How does allowing Saddam Hussein to sell oil help our
position in this situation when it is entirely probable that he will
use these monetary returns to purchase new and improved weapons
systems?
Answer. Under UNSCR 986 and subsequent ``oil-for-food''
resolutions, the Government of Iraq does not touch the revenues paid
for the oil sold. That money is put into an escrow account controlled
by the United Nations, and is used solely for the purchase of
humanitarian goods. There is thus no way for Saddam Hussein to get at
it for the purchase of weapons.
The humanitarian program established by resolution 986, and
subsequent resolutions, is the largest U.N.-operated humanitarian
program in the history of the United Nations. It serves an important
goal of the international community: to demonstrate concretely that the
United Nations, and in particular the members of the Security Council,
remain committed to meeting the essential humanitarian needs of all
Iraq's people. The United States strongly supports this program, of
which it was one of the principal authors.
Question. If an American air strike is launched on specific
chemical and biological targets, what is the potential for collateral
damage as a result of the release of these agents?
Answer. If we knew where Iraq might be hiding chemical and
biological agents, we certainly would ask UNSCOM to go there and
destroy them safely, demanding with the rest of the Security Council
that the Government of Iraq not block UNSCOM yet again.
On the question of potential damage resulting from hypothetical
bombing, this technical answer is not within the competence of the
Department of State.
anticorruption: ukraine
Question. What steps is the State Department taking to assist
American companies and investors in this region?
Answer. American firms operating in Ukraine expect their government
to do its utmost to ensure a level playing field for their businesses,
and the State Department and the U.S. Mission in Kiev are actively
engaged in assisting American companies and investors in Ukraine in
order to achieve that goal. Ukraine has been going through enormous
changes from planned to market economics. Along the way there have been
many problems, and corruption is one of them. The Ukrainian government
needs to do more to reduce regulation, bureaucracy and inconsistent
enforcement of laws and administrative requirements. All these
contribute to corruption by creating opportunities for selective
enforcement.
The U.S. Government has in place a number of initiatives to try to
assist the Ukrainians in dealing with such systemic obstacles to a more
open and fair investment climate. One such program is our
``Transparency Initiative,'' which targets certain areas of direct
relevance to the difficulties faced by U.S. businesses. Another area is
law enforcement cooperation, which, among other things, includes
efforts to help put into place reliable legal and enforcement
structures to combat official corruption. We have also concluded a
Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), which obligates Ukraine to provide
our investors fair and equitable treatment in compliance with
international law. Investors who encounter difficulties in Ukraine have
several remedies open to them under the BIT, one of which is
international arbitration. Ukraine has consented in the BIT to such
arbitration, which is a powerful remedy for investors.
In Ukraine itself, the U.S. Mission, including State Department,
Commerce Department and USAID officials, has worked since the
establishment of our relations with Ukraine to encourage the systemic
and structural changes that will improve the investment and business
climate. At the most senior policy levels, for example in the U.S.-
Ukraine Binational Commission (Gore-Kuchma), we are doing our utmost to
impress upon the Ukrainian leadership the critical need, in Ukraine's
own best interest, of completing the development of a transparent,
modern market economic system with reasonable opportunities for all.
This has included raising, where appropriate, the problems faced by
specific U.S. companies and investors.
Question. In your opinion, Madame Secretary, should the Ukraine be
certified this year to receive foreign aid in light of its record of
treatment of U.S. companies?
Answer. I have not yet reached a decision on that issue. Between
April 1-9, senior officials from both governments will meet to review
the business disputes that fall within the definition of the
certification provision of the Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Assistance
Appropriations Act. When our review of all the facts is complete and I
have received a recommendation, I will make a decision in accordance
with the law.
Question. Could you please have the State Department look into the
situation of Gala Radio and report back to this subcommittee?
Answer. The State Department, Commerce Department, and the U.S.
Embassy in Kiev have been very actively engaged in efforts to assist in
resolution of Gala Radio's problems. This is an extremely difficult and
complex case. Gala Radio has recently filed a request for arbitration
of its dispute with the Ukrainian government with the International
Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes' Additional Facility,
as provided for in the U.S.-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
We are very pleased that the BIT provided the U.S. investor with this
valuable remedy.
Now that the case is in arbitration, we are working to ensure that
the Ukrainian government understands the arbitration process and its
obligations under it, including the obligation to refrain from any
conduct that could undermine the fair and just resolution of the
investor's claim. Our Embassy and the Department remain in regular
contact with the investor, and we will continue to follow the situation
closely and to take any appropriate steps toward the goal of the
investor obtaining the full protection afforded by the BIT.
I have personally raised this case with President Kuchma and have
urged him to see to its resolution. This case, and those like it, which
do so much to deter foreign investment in Ukraine, represent the most
serious impediment to Ukraine's economic recovery.
Question. What is your view on this proposed legislation?
Answer. The Administration will continue to work with Congress on
improving international free market conditions, especially as it
pertains to opportunities for American business investments and
operations. The issues involved, however, are complex and have major
ramifications. In many of these countries, political and economic
reform is undergoing an evolutionary process which, although progress
is being made, it is sporadic and long term.
The Administration has made good governance and transparency a
primary goal in its foreign economic policy. We have been pleased that
the international financial institutions have embraced this goal as
their own. U.S. assistance and that of the international financial
institutions play a key role in promoting good governance,
accountability, a free and fair market and a level playing field for
all investors.
united states role in assisting israel
Question. What do you see as the State Department's primary role in
assisting Israel to achieve its goal of peace with security?
Answer. The U.S. welcomes its role in assisting Israel to achieve
its goal of peace with security. The U.S. has an unshakable commitment
to Israel's security. We have maintained and sought to strengthen that
commitment even further.
Our efforts to directly assist Israel in meeting its security needs
are complemented by our efforts to promote a lasting peace between
Israel and her Arab neighbors. In Israel's interests and at Israeli
request, the U.S. is playing the role of honest broker. Nothing we have
done or tried to do in the peace process would ever undermine Israel's
vital security interests. Indeed, the best way to enhance that security
is to produce a real peace through negotiation. At each step of the
process, we have acted to minimize the risks Israel takes for peace.
In its role as honest broker, the U.S. has called on both parties
to make the tough decisions, because that is what is needed to get this
process back on track and create the environment for the resumption of
permanent status talks which Israel wants and which could foster peace
and security. Our role has included putting forth some of our own ideas
to break the current stalemate, in the interests of both peace and
security. We are also pressing the Palestinians to do all they can to
fight terror 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Administration will
seek to deepen our powerful bonds with Israel, while pursuing a lasting
peace with security in the Middle East.
middle east peace process
Question. The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial
thoughts about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-
12 year goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. Would you please
comment on the Israeli proposal?
Answer. In late January, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Ne'eman
began discussions with Members of Congress and Administration officials
on a proposal that would gradually reduce Israel's annual $1.2 billion
economic assistance to zero, while phasing in an increase in military
assistance over the same 10-12 year period.
We welcome Minister Ne'eman's initiative and note that it follows
the initial efforts suggested by the Administration in fiscal year 1997
and fiscal year 1998 to begin to adjust traditional bilateral
assistance levels to the Middle East. We have asked the Israeli
government for clarification of certain aspects of its offer, and are
still formulating our response. We have also asked the Government of
Egypt to provide its views on future U.S. bilateral economic
assistance. We hope to work out a formula for fiscal year 1999
assistance to the Middle East that meets our full range of regional
requirements.
nato expansion
Question. What sort of financial safety net will secure the cost
balance so that the U.S. is not forced to shoulder an unfair burden,
should any of our EU allies decide that they are unable or unwilling to
maintain their fair share of funding for NATO enlargement?
Answer. We are confident that our European allies will pay their
fair share of the costs of NATO enlargement. Our confidence is based on
an established track record of nearly fifty years during which our
allies consistently fulfilled their NATO financial obligations. We are
further encouraged by the fact that NATO political leaders, both in
Madrid and in Brussels acknowledged that there will be costs associated
with NATO enlargement, and confirmed their nations' willingness to meet
these costs.
The fact is that the allies already pay 75 percent of NATO common
costs year in and year out. According to NATO's estimates, the cost of
adding these three states is expected to amount to less than 10 percent
of NATO's annual budget, and there is no reason to believe that such a
slight increment would not be met by both current and new members.
While the U.S. pays about 25 percent of NATO common costs, our European
allies pay the remaining 75 percent of those costs, which amounted to
approximately $1.3 billion last year. Based on past performance and
recent pledges to provide the resources to support a successful
enlargement effort, we have every reason to be confident that our
European allies will continue to fulfill their financial obligations to
the Alliance.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure the new members, if
ultimately approved, pay their full share.
Answer. The three invited nations have publicly affirmed their
willingness and ability to contribute fully to the Alliance, and we
believe that they will do so.
Between September and November of 1997, NATO held four rounds of
accession talks in Brussels with Poland, and five each with Hungary and
the Czech Republic. These discussions examined in detail the three
states' military capabilities, their willingness to contribute forces
to NATO activities, and their readiness to accept the political and
legal obligations of NATO membership.
These discussions led to acceptance by the Czech Republic, Hungary,
and Poland, of NATO's proposed cost shares of 0.9, 0.65, and 2.48
percent respectively. All three countries have also stated their
willingness to meet target force goals which are currently being
jointly developed by NATO and the three invited nations.
All three invited countries also have plans for defense budget
increases. For new members, the costs of NATO enlargement will be a
manageable percentage of their planned military budgets.
The Czech government, for example, has approved plans to increase
their 1998 national defense spending to about $1.1 billion, which
represents about 1.88 percent of projected GDP. The Czech Republic
plans to link defense spending growth to the rate of GDP growth and to
increase the percentage of GDP dedicated to defense by 0.1 percent
annually for the next 3 years which will raise the percentage from the
current 1.7 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 2.0 percent in 2000.
The Hungarians have increased their 1997 national defense budget to
about $800 million, which represents about 1.8 percent of projected
GDP. Hungary also plans to link defense spending growth to the rate of
GDP growth and to increase the percentage of GDP dedicated to defense
by 0.1 percent annually for the next five years. This will translate to
in increase in Hungarian defense spending in real terms by 3 to 8
percent annually during the next four years.
Poland spent 2.3 percent of GDP on defense in 1996. Poland's 15-
year modernization plan calls for annual increases in defense spending
which are pegged to the rate of GDP growth. Based on a conservative
estimate of a 4.2 percent annual growth rate, Polish defense spending
should increase approximately 3.2 percent annually.
The facts described above show a firm commitment on the part of the
three invited countries to pay their full share of NATO costs.
Question. Could you please provide this subcommittee with the most
recent cost estimates of the NATO enlargement proposal?
Answer. The Administration's February 1998 Report to Congress on
the Military Requirements and Costs of NATO Enlargement is the most
recent U.S. government statement on NATO enlargement cost estimates.
The Administration's Report endorses the NATO Cost Study assessment
that the common-funded costs of enlargement will be about $1.5 billion
from 1998 through 2008. The U.S. share of these common-funded
enlargement costs is estimated to be around $400 million over this
period. The General Accounting Office also validated these conclusions
in its 6 March, 1998 Report to Congress, NATO Enlargement: Requirements
and Costs for Commonly Funded Budgets.
The NATO study and the earlier, February 1997 U.S. estimate came to
different conclusions because they were different in several key areas.
First, the portion of the Administration's earlier U.S. cost estimate
that addressed what the Alliance would collectively pay is $4.9 to $6.2
billion (not $27 to $35 billion), and should be compared to the $1.5
billion NATO estimate.
Second, prior to NATO's identification of new members, the
Administration outlined general requirements and an illustrative cost
estimate for four potential new members; after the July 1997 Madrid
Summit at which NATO named the three invitees, NATO identified detailed
military requirements and a common-funded cost estimate for three new
members.
Third, NATO's studies were based on more recent and detailed data
on new members' infrastructure (e.g., airbases, road and rail
networks), including site visits, that revealed better conditions than
the Administration had previously assessed. Other factors included the
following. The Administration assumed common funding for some
requirements (e.g., airfield off-loading equipment) that NATO
determined are nationally funded. The Administration also used higher
cost factors for needed upgrades (e.g., air defense C\2\) in some
instances.
Finally, there were modest differences in requirements with a
significant cost impact. While some military requirements differ, the
differences are modest and not operationally significant. Both studies
use the same reinforcement strategy and developed broadly similar
military requirements, including the number and types of reinforcing
forces and reception facilities. However, the Administration's study
included some requirements that NATO did not include (e.g., more
ambitious upgrades to airfields and training facilities).
The Administration's review concluded that NATO developed a sound
and reliable cost estimate, provided that the specific facilities to be
selected during NATO's ongoing force planning process have essentially
the same characteristics as those visited by the NATO International
Staff during development of its cost estimate. The Department has every
reason to expect that this will be the case, thus we are confident that
NATO's estimate of $1.5 billion over ten years is an accurate
assessment of enlargement common-funded costs.
international crime initiative
Question. Madame Secretary, during a hearing about one year ago,
you and I discussed serious new developments in international crime and
its effect on Americans here at home and abroad. The Appropriations
Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign Operations Committee report,
expressed concern about the increase in crime abroad and its direct and
indirect impact on the United States. The Committee also requested that
you convene a new Secretaries, Task Force on International Crime, in
cooperation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury,
and the ONDCP Director, and report to Congress by March 26, 1998 on
specific issues which the Committee outlined.
What is the status of your work on this Task Force?
Answer. The Administration's International Crime Control Strategy,
which will be released soon, addresses the issues we discussed and
which were raised in the Committee report to which you refer. Please
note that the Administration has meanwhile taken various steps to
coordinate our foreign policy, national security and international law
enforcement objectives along the lines of the Task Force described in
the Committee report. For instance, the Special Coordination Group
(SCG) for International Crime functions like the cabinet level working
group to coordinate international crime control activities recommended
by the Committee report. SCG is chaired by the Senior Director for
Global Issues and Multilateral Affairs of the National Security Council
and includes representatives from all relevant agencies in the
Executive Branch.
The SCG works to develop policies and programs to promote the
Administration's entire range of law enforcement goals abroad. This
includes, for example, the advancement of specific criminal cases and
police training and other initiatives to build and strengthen judicial
systems and institutions. An interagency working group chaired by the
State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs coordinates specific training issues.
preliminary findings
Question. Are there any preliminary findings you could share with
us today prior to submission of your final report next month?
Answer. The Administration views the International Crime Control
Strategy as a fundamental plan of action. It will articulate eight
broad goals accompanied by detailed objectives as a blueprint for an
effective, long-term attack on the international crime problem. The
Strategy is also designed as an expression of national will and a
cohesive statement that the nation is resolved to reduce substantially
international crime and its adverse impact on American people.
Law enforcement concerns, always a factor in our foreign policy,
have taken on fresh importance in the face of powerful and fast-moving
criminal elements which harm the interests of the United States and its
citizens, even when those elements operate well beyond our national
boundaries. As we seek to minimize the threat with practical policies
and programs, we welcome Congressional interest and ideas which redound
to the common benefit of all Americans.
new steps to fight international crime
Question. Do you have an update since last year's hearing on what
new steps the State Department is taking to fight international crime?
Answer. The President's forthcoming International Crime Control
Strategy, which we will provide you upon publication, describes the
many aggressive steps the State Department, and other agencies, have
taken to organize and support U.S. efforts to fight international
crime. In addition to sustaining on-going efforts, new initiatives to
highlight from our $20 million program over the past year include the
following:
--Stronger and more focused international cooperation to attack money
laundering. We have conducted major training seminars in Russia
and Latin America; have negotiated a Caribbean training project
with the EC; participated in multilateral anti-money laundering
assessments in Cyprus, Romania, and several of the NIS; and
supported the anti-money laundering alliance the President
signed with Venezuela.
--Stronger international anti-crime regimes. We have signed or are
negotiating stolen car treaties with some 11 Latin American and
East European countries; put in place a worldwide program to
fight alien smuggling; led negotiations in the OAS on the
recently signed treaty to control trafficking in firearms; and
presided over the G-8 experts group on international crime
where we were able to launch a new initiative against high-tech
crime, worked toward a multilateral agreement against firearms
trafficking modeled on the OAS treaty. We are working in the G-
8 and elsewhere to deny criminals safe haven by improving
cooperation on extradition and asset forfeitures.
--Enhanced law enforcement and judicial institution building. To
advance police cooperation, we are pursuing efforts to
establish International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) in
Latin America and Southeast Asia.
--Identification and raised profile of emerging types of
international crime. We have worked through G-8 and other fora
to foster greater information sharing and international
cooperation to combat environmental crime, theft of
intellectual property rights, and other forms of international
crime that harm America's consumers and investors and threaten
our economic and security interests.
iran weapons technology acquisition
Question. Over the past few years, Russia has been the major source
of missile technology to Iran. News reports indicate that if the flow
continues unabated, Iran may have the indigenous capability to assemble
and test missiles within a year. The Senate is considering the Iran
Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, which has already passed the
House. This Act would sanction entities--not the Russian government--
involved in the transfer of missile technology to Iran.
Do you agree with estimates of Iranian capabilities?
Answer. Iran is pursuing a multi-track effort to develop both
liquid and solid-propellant missile systems. We believe Iran possesses
an extensive inventory of 300-kilometer range and 500-kilometer range
Scud missiles. Iran purchased Scud missiles and related technology from
North Korea and is probably close to achieving Scud production
capability, if it has not already done so. Iran also is developing a
medium-range ballistic missile. Once Iran's indigenous missile
production capability is fully developed, Iran would pose a new
proliferation risk if it were to begin to export Iranian produced Scuds
and production technology.
Question. Do you support the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions
Act?
Answer. No, the Administration does not support this bill. Current
law provides an adequate basis for the United States to impose
sanctions on foreign entities that contribute to Iranian ballistic
missile capabilities. The Administration is committed to fighting
terrorism and taking steps to halt the transfer of missile technology
to countries of concern, such as Iran. We believe, however, that the
bill in its current form would weaken the U.S. ability to persuade the
international community to halt such transfers to Iran. Because of the
bill's requirement to impose sanctions based on an unworkable, low
standard of evidence, its broad scope of covered transactions and lack
of a meaningful waiver provision, we believe the President would be
required to impose sanctions worldwide in a manner likely to undermine
U.S. nonproliferation goals and objectives. We believe the bill would
be counterproductive to convincing foreign governments to control
missile-related trade with Iran. For example, the standard of evidence
is so low it could result in the imposition of an untold number of
erroneous sanctions on individuals or business entities. Imposition of
erroneous sanctions on a large scale could dissuade foreign governments
or persons from cooperating with the U.S. to prevent the transfer of
missile technology to Iran and harm U.S. foreign policy goals and U.S.
commercial interests with other nations.
Although the proposed law is of global scope, it is intended to
deal with Russian entities involved with Iran's missile program. We
have made progress with the Government of Russia on key aspects of its
companies' cooperation with Iranian missile programs. Then Prime
Minister Chernomyrdin signed an executive order on January 22
substantially strengthening the Russian export control process,
providing new authority to stop transfers of dual-use goods and
services to missile programs and programs for weapons of mass
destruction. We have been discussing with the Russians steps necessary
to implement the order and ideas for U.S. Russian cooperation in the
development of export control systems. We have received assurances that
the new government will honor this commitment. Some concerns remain and
we will continue to press our case at the highest levels of the Russian
government.
Question. The GAO has completed two reports commissioned by Members
of Congress which address the issue of support by the International
Atomic Energy Agency for programs in rogue states such as Iran and Cuba
through the largely U.S. supported Technical Cooperation Program. U.S.
contributions to the IAEA have been going to complete the Bushehr
Nuclear Power Facility in Iran. The U.S. has explicit objections to the
completion of this plant because it may advance Iran's nuclear weapons
program. Should the United States continue to provide voluntary
contributions to this program if it supports programs which do not
coincide with U.S. nuclear non-proliferation and safety goals?
Answer. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not
contributed to the construction of the nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
Currently, the IAEA is funding only safety-related projects for the
Bushehr reactor under its Technical Cooperation (TC) Program. The U.S.
is opposed to the Bushehr project because the project will provide Iran
with a rationale to acquire more sensitive nuclear facilities and with
commercial channels that Tehran can use to pursue more sensitive
nuclear technologies.
The U.S. voluntary contribution to the IAEA technical assistance
program is an important way the U.S. meets its commitment under Article
IV of the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to
``facilitate * * * the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy. Many developing countries party to the NPT view
IAEA technical cooperation programs as a tangible benefit of their
Treaty membership.
Approximately 90 countries, including Iran and Cuba, are recipients
of IAEA technical cooperation. The United States has made clear its
opposition to nuclear cooperation with Iran and Cuba, but we believe
that seeking to terminate all IAEA-sponsored TC with countries such as
Iran and Cuba could undermine our overall approach to nonproliferation
worldwide and even our efforts to ensure effective safeguards in those
and other countries.
That is because international political and financial support for
the Agency's safeguards depends on adequate support for its TC program.
Efforts to stop all TC to countries that have not been found to have
violated their international obligations could jeopardize support for
strengthening safeguards worldwide and especially for getting countries
such as Iran to accept the Agency's strengthened safeguards system,
which will improve our ability to detect any undeclared nuclear
activities.
massacre in chiapas, mexico
Question. Can you comment on the results of the visit to Mexico by
Special Envoy for Latin America, Thomas McLarty, to investigate the
status of this situation?
Answer. Counselor to the President and Special Envoy to the
Americas McLarty visited Mexico in January to become acquainted with
new key members of the Mexican cabinet, meet the new City mayor, and
discuss with them a broad multilateral issues. He also paid a courtesy
call on President Zedillo and met with representatives of human rights
NGO's and the National Human Rights Commission. The situation in
Chiapas was one of the subjects covered in some of his conversations.
Mr. McLarty's interlocutors outlined the complexity of the conflict
in Chiapas and emphasized the difficulty in finding a peaceful solution
to the situation. The Mexican officials recognized the international
impact of events in Chiapas and discussed the Mexican Government's
reinvigorated efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
In addition, there was some discussion of the future need for economic
and social restructuring in Chiapas.
Mr. McLarty expressed our concern about the situation in Chiapas,
especially the human rights aspects of it, and offered appropriate
support for the Government of Mexico's efforts to find a peaceful,
negotiated settlement to the conflict.
Question. Could you please provide the subcommittee with a report
on the current situation in Chiapas?
Answer. The massacre of 45 indigenous peasants in Acteal, Chiapas
last December 22 apparently was carried out by armed civilians (a
paramilitary group), probably linked to local government and public
security officials. Mexican President Zedillo quickly recognized the
dimensions of the problem and took the investigation out of the hands
of state officials who may have been compromised.
The investigation so far has resulted in the issuance of over 120
arrest warrants in connection with the massacre. More than 80 persons
have been detained, including the mayor of the municipality where the
massacre took place and a state police chief. Prosecutions of a number
of individuals are underway.
As a result of the massacre, the Chiapas state governor, the
Gobernacion (Interior) Secretary, and the Government's special
negotiator for Chiapas all were forced to resign. The new Chiapas team
indicated renewed interest in dialogue and a political solution to the
conflict in Chiapas. In mid-March, the Government sent draft
legislation to the Mexican Congress to amend the Mexican Constitution
in the areas of indigenous rights and culture.
This move has been criticized by other parties and Zapatista
insurgents as unilateral. The opposition National Action Party has its
own draft bill, while the Party of the Democratic Revolution favors
continuing work towards resolution of the situation through the Peace
and Conciliation Commission (COCOPA) and inclusion of the Zapatistas in
the terms of any settlement.
The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the National Action
Party may cooperate to pass a version of this legislation, but a way
must still be found to resolve the conflict with the Zapatistas. The
absence of a peace and conciliation settlement in Chiapas continues to
impede social and economic reform and development in the state.
We are following the investigation very closely through periodic
special briefings by the Mexican Attorney General's Office. We tell the
Mexican Government that we look forward to prosecution and punishment
of those responsible, and to a long term, peaceful resolution of the
situation in Chiapas.
microcredit
Question. What is the State Department doing, particularly in the
Newly Independent States (NIS) and Africa, to support the goal of the
1997 Microcredit Summit to provide access to microcredit programs for
100 million of the world's poorest families?
Answer. The State Department provides support for this goal in a
variety of ways.
First, through our embassies in the NIS countries and in Africa,
the State Department works closely with USAID to implement USAID's
Microenterprise Initiative. Since 1991, USAID has allocated about $175
million for microenterprise funding in Africa. Since 1994, when
programs began in a few NIS countries, about $39 million has been
provided. Assistance is provided through enterprise funds, NGO
intermediaries, loan guarantees, and technical assistance. USAID
assistance has already paid off in Africa with programs such as Kenya's
Rural Enterprise Program, Senegal's Agence de Credit Pour L'Enterprise
Privee, and Niger's Bankin Raya Karkara. In the NIS, the poor are being
served through such programs as USAID-funded FINCA International's
Village Banking model. Since 1995, more than $1.7 million has been
disbursed with defaults of only $600. Eighty-nine percent of recipients
are women. Another highly successful program supported by USAID funds
is that of Opportunity International in Russia.
A second avenue of support is through the Ambassador's Special
Self-Help (SSH) Program which funds a variety of projects at our
embassies in Africa. Examples of projects supported by the SSH include
purchase of a grain mill for a community of 50 women in Uganda, start-
up funds provided to a 45 woman tailoring project in Kenya, and money
to purchase stalls to house pigs for a farmers association in Ghana.
A third way in which State Department supports the goal of the
Microcredit Summit is through our support for programs and projects at
the Multilateral Development Banks (MDB's).
The World Bank-administered Consultative Group to Assist the
Poorest (CGAP) is increasingly active in the microenterprise lending in
Africa and the NIS. World Bank funding for microenterprise grew from
$11.5 million in 1994 to $87.8 million in 1996, with Africa and the NIS
being leading recipients. The Bank is continually working to improve
the effectiveness of its programs to reach those most in need.
The African Development Bank launched its Microfinance Initiative
for Africa at the end of 1997. The Initiative has initial funding of
$21 million and is designed to improve the performance of existing
microfinance institutions by upgrading their technical and
organizational capacity. In addition, the Bank often includes
microfinance components in poverty alleviation project loans. A recent
loan to Cameroon, for example, included support for small scale
enterprises and self-employment for women.
The European Bank for Economic Cooperation and Development (EBRD)
is also supporting microlending activities, including through the very
successful Russia Small Business Fund (RSBF), which was initiated in
partnership with the G-7. The RSBF operates in 19 Russian regions and
has received $30 million in support from the U.S. Technical and
financial support is provided to Russian banks to offer small and micro
loans. By the end of 1997, the RSBF banks had provided nearly 14,000
micro loans totaling about $97 million. Using the RSBF model, the U.S.
and EBRD are working together to create a microlending program in
Ukraine. The State Department and other U.S agencies work closely with
the MDB's in support of these efforts.
The State Department also works closely with the African
Development Foundation, which was established by the U.S. Congress in
1980 to support the self-help initiatives of grassroots communities in
Africa. During fiscal year 1994-1996, the Foundation assisted 79 micro
and small enterprise projects in Africa.
international exchanges programs
Question. The Administration's budget proposal shifts $7.5 million
from USIA's overall International Educational and Cultural Exchange
account to the Fulbright program under USIA. This is certainly great
news, but it seems like the perfect case of robbing ``Peter to pay
Paul'' as this increase will come at the cost of the other programs in
the Educational and Cultural Exchange account.
Can you please comment on this proposal?
Answer. USIA's budget submission noted that built-in requirements,
mainly price increases and Federal pay raises, will cost $5,873,000 in
the Exchanges Programs account. In order to meet these cost increases
and provide the Fulbright program with a modest increase within the
Administration's overall budget limits, USIA had to make difficult
decisions with regard to other exchange programs.
The Fulbright program is the U.S. Government's oldest and most
prestigious academic exchange program, offering a range of academic
experiences. Having recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, the
program is a vibrant multi-national partnership supported by more than
fifty foreign governments as well as our own. In 1997, a report was
issued by the National Humanities Center and strongly endorsed by the
President. This report made numerous recommendations to strengthen the
program for the future. One of these recommendations was to ``reaffirm
federal support for Fulbright and the U.S. commitment to leadership in
international educational exchange'' by restoring the ``recently
reduced'' Fulbright budget to $125 million. Implementation of several
of the other recommendations, such as improving record keeping,
expanding the use of new technologies and broadening partnerships with
foreign and U.S. institutions will also require budget increases for
Fulbright.
We are especially eager to initiate a program for American graduate
students in Russia and to expand opportunities for Americans to study
and do research in China and Vietnam. We intend to enlarge the
specially designed exchanges which promote the Middle East peace
process. In South Africa, we will soon have a new commission which has
the potential to significantly impact educational reforms taking place
in that country. We also plan to reward commissions which have
demonstrated initiative in raising funds form host country and private
sector sources such as the Philippines, Korea, Jordan, Morocco and
Argentina.
Question. What impact will this shift of funds have on the
international Education Program?
Answer. The shift of funds will cause some reductions in
international and Cultural Exchange programs, particularly on USIA's
contacts with American community organizations which support or are
involved with international exchanges. Fewer Citizen Exchange grants
will be completed in fiscal year 1999. The precise effect on community
organizations is difficult to estimate since Citizen Exchange grants
are defined during the fiscal year through consultations with
geographic area offices and an analysis of overseas USIS post requests.
However, overall Citizen Exchange grants will probably be reduced from
a total of 60 in fiscal year 1997 to about 45 in fiscal year 1999.
Fewer International Visitors also will result in less financial
support to community organizations that support the international
Visitor program. Local organizations are likely to experience
reductions, since USIA's community support grants may be negatively
affected by these budget reductions.
Educational advising, which assists and prepares future foreign
leaders to undertake study in the U.S., continues to play an important
role in furthering U.S. public diplomacy objectives. However, hard
budget decisions had to be made to meet built-in cost increases and
provide the Fulbright program with a modest increase within overall
budget limits. We gave priority attention this fiscal year to
augmenting the Fulbright program budget to address its most pressing
challenges and opportunities. Unfortunately, that meant reductions in
other programs.
USIA is working with private sector constituencies in local and
state governments, corporations, and institutions of higher education
to enlist them in providing support for the overseas advising centers.
We also have projects underway to increase private sector and user-
based cost-sharing, to partially offset some of the operational costs
of running advising centers. However, private sector funding or fee
recycling is unlikely to fully offset the cut in appropriated funds.
funding for war crimes tribunals
Question. Please provide a summary chart of all funding from the
U.S. provided to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda since their inception. Please indicate the amount
of in-kind contributions as well. How much funding does the U.S.
provide to the Trust Fund established to support the tribunals?
Answer. Of the amounts in the attached table, ``U.S. Government
Funding for War Crimes Tribunals,'' the in-kind and Trust Fund
distributions break down as follows:
Trust funds:
Yugoslavia:
Fiscal year 1994 PKO.................................. $700,000
Fiscal year 1997 SEED................................. 500,000
Fiscal year 1998 ESF.................................. 400,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 1,600,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Rwanda:
Fiscal year 1994 IO&P................................. 500,000
Fiscal year 1995 ESF.................................. 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 1,400,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
In-kind contributions:
Yugoslavia:
Fiscal year 1993 DOD.................................. 300,000
Fiscal year 1994 PKO.................................. 2,300,000
Fiscal year 1996:
ESF............................................... 1,000,000
SEED.............................................. 136,000
Fiscal year 1998 ESF.................................. 1,675,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 5,411,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Rwanda:
Fiscal year 1996:
DOD............................................... 900,000
IDA............................................... 1,240,000
Fiscal year 1997 ESF.................................. 194,000
Fiscal year 1998 ESF.................................. 456 000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 2,790,000
U.S. GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cumulative
Contribution source 1998 1999 totals
1993 actual 1994 actual 1995 actual 1996 actual 1997 actual estimate request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Yugoslavia
Assessed contributions:
Contributions for Intl. Organizations (CIO). ........... ........... ........... 5.498 10.327 6.544 12.500 34.869
Cont. for Intl. Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA)..................................... ........... ........... ........... ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) 6.544 12.000 18.544
Voluntary contributions:
Economic Support Funds (ESF)................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2.075 ........... 2.075
Intl. Organizations and Peacekeeping (IO&P). \1\ 0.500 ........... ........... 1.000 ........... ........... ........... 1.500
Support for Eastern European Democracy
(SEED)..................................... ........... ........... ........... 0.136 0.500 ........... ........... 0.636
Voluntary Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)..... ........... 3.000 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3.000
Defense Department (excess property)........ \1\ 0.300 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.300
Employees Detailed (State, DOD, DOJ, USAID)..... ........... 1.500 1.500 1.500 0.750 2.000 ........... 7.250
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. 0.800 4.500 1.500 8.134 11. 577 17.163 24.500 68.174
=======================================================================================================
Rwanda
Assessed contributions:
Contributions for Intl. Organizations (CIO). ........... ........... ........... 1.683 7.317 7.092 12.500 28.592
Cont. for Intl. Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA)..................................... ........... ........... ........... ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) 6.577 12.000 18.577
Voluntary contributions:
Economic Support Funds (ESF)................ ........... ........... 0.900 0.150 0.194 0.456 ........... 1.700
Intl. Organizations and Peacekeeping (IO&P). ........... 0.500 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.500
USAID/OTI--international Disaster Assistance ........... ........... ........... 1.240 ........... ........... ........... 1.240
USAID/AFR--Development Fund for Africa...... ........... ........... ........... 0.500 ........... ........... ........... 0.500
Defense Department (excess property)........ ........... ........... ........... 0.900 ........... ........... ........... 0.900
Employees Detailed (DOD)........................ ........... ........... 0.105 0.800 0.600 0.200 ........... 1.705
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. ........... 0.500 1.005 5.273 8.111 14.325 24.500 53.714
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding went to the U.N. Commission of Experts whose investigation led to the formation of the War Crimes Tribunals.
\2\ The U.S. provided no CIPA funds for these years because the U.N. covered the peacekeeping share of tribunals costs from unencumbered balances from
peacekeeping operations in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
china facilities--new embassy building schedule
Question. What is the schedule for building this new Embassy?
Answer. Assuming the fiscal year 1999 appropriation request is
enacted, the estimated schedule is as follows:
Complete site acquisition............ November 1998.
Award design contract................ April 1999.
Complete design...................... May 2001.
Award construction contract.......... June 2001.
Complete construction................ October 2004.
china facilities--housing
Question. What are we going to do about the housing situation?
Answer. We have already taken a number of steps to improve the
substandard conditions but much remains to be accomplished. The most
serious problems are conditions in Beijing and exceptionally high lease
costs in Shanghai, but all China posts except Hong Kong have some
housing concerns. Meeting these concerns is a long-term effort to which
we are fully committed.
Beijing.--Embassy Beijing is engaged in a program to upgrade its
poorest quality housing units. As a first step in that program, we
acquired 21 new leased units earlier this year that are closer to
Western life-safety and seismic standards and provide greater control
over maintenance. We are also engaged in a phased effort to completely
renovate a number of existing apartments. Because windows were leaking
soot and grit-laden air, we recently installed new windows and air
conditioning units in all apartments leased in the diplomatic compound.
These apartments will also receive electrical and plumbing
rehabilitation, making them safer and more functional for residents.
For the longer term, the focus is on acquiring additional suitable
housing--through lease or purchase--as units become available in
Beijing. For example, we are considering the purchase of 28-32
residential units in a Western-standard apartment building now under
construction in an excellent location. In addition, we plan to
construct, on a U.S.-owned site, 66 new apartments that will meet U.S.
seismic, fire, life-safety, and security requirements.
Shanghai.--We are ready to award the design contract for the
construction of a new 31-unit housing compound on U.S.Government land
that will reduce the need to pay exorbitantly expensive leasing costs.
Guangzbou.--We are in the process of selecting one of two sites,
available to us under the China Property Agreement, on which to
construct residences and office space to replace inadequate existing
space. Residences and offices are now collocated in a seismically and
structurally deficient tower of a hotel which we lease.
Chengdu.--Our plan is to exercise an option to purchase currently
leased apartments and bring them up to standard.
Shenyang.--With the fixed-rent schedule for the apartments and an
option to purchase the building expiring in 2001, the goal is to
exercise that option and provide extensive renovations.
china facilities--housing renovations
Question. How much of the $19 million we gave you was spent to
renovate housing in the meantime?
Answer. The Department intends to earmark $3.4 million of these
funds for specific use in China, such as for correcting life-safety
deficiencies in the Beijing Chancery and upgrading staff housing. This
$3.4 million will be in addition to other funds appropriated under the
Security and Maintenance of U.S. Missions, plus available asset
management funds, to carry out housing improvements in China in fiscal
year 1998 and beyond.
The remainder of the $19.6 million will be used for critical
facility rehabilitation projects in Dhahran, Jeddah, Kampala, Manila,
Suva, and Vientiane that would otherwise be delayed, and to ensure the
timely replacement of overseas telephone systems that are not Year 2000
compliant.
status of jerusalem embassy act implementation
Question. What is the status of the effort to conduct architectural
and engineering plans to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem?
Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
undermine the peace process.
Accordingly, we did not think it would have been prudent to expend
the taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
uncertainties about timing and final decisions. Let me stress, however,
that this does not prejudice our ability to establish an embassy in
Jerusalem should that decision be made.
In the meantime, we continue to pursue non-construction options to
do so, and we are now better prepared, for example, to promptly lease
space in Jerusalem. We are also working to preserve our options for
constructing an embassy, in part by trying to ensure that ongoing
construction by other developers near the site be in conformity with
previously established requirements worked out between the U.S. and the
Israeli government.
selecting an architect for design of embassy in jerusalem
Question. When will an architect be selected and these funds be
obligated?
Answer. Given the sensitivity of the Jerusalem issue to the ongoing
peace negotiations and the agreement by Israel and the Palestinians to
consider Jerusalem in their permanent status talks, the President feels
strongly that no action should be taken which would undermine the peace
process. We did not think it would have been prudent to expend the
taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
uncertainties about timing and final decisions. In the meantime, we
have positioned ourselves better to move on nonconstruction options to
establish an embassy, should that be the decision.
oceans and atmosphere
Question. Given that it has been more than 30 years since we looked
at U.S. ocean policies, don't you agree that this legislation is
necessary and timely?
Answer. I believe we share a common view of the importance of the
United States playing a leadership role in the protection and
preservation of the world's oceans, including the traditional uses,
such as navigation and fishing. From our standpoint, the single most
important action that the Senate could take with respect to the oceans
would be to give its advice and consent to accession to the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of the
accompanying agreement fixing the deep seabed mining portions of the
Convention.
This year--the International Year of the Ocean--represents an
excellent opportunity for the Nation to initiate a major review of its
ocean policies and to take actions to improve our understanding of
ocean resources and systems. The Administration supports enactment of
an oceans bill that will contribute to the preservation of the Nation's
ocean and coastal areas and does not infringe on the prerogatives of
the President and the Executive Branch.
We remain available to work with the relevant Committees to ensure
that a final bill clearly and specifically reflects our mutual
priorities.
Question. Can I count on your help to get the S. 1213 enacted into
law?
Answer. The Department of State supports enactment of an Oceans Act
of 1998. Enactment of such a bill can play a significant role in
mobilizing public support for the review and implementation of an
effective oceans and coastal policy for the United States, and in
ensuring that the most expert advice would be available to government
officials from the private sector, academia and other organizations. As
I have noted, one guiding principle is a bill that will contribute to
the preservation of the Nation's ocean and coastal areas and does not
infringe on the prerogatives of the President and the Executive Branch.
We look forward to continuing to work constructively with you on
this matter.
Question. When can we expect to see the top ocean-related policy
positions at State filled (Under Secretary for Global Affairs and
Assistant Secretary for Oceans, International Environment and Science)?
Answer. We appreciate your interest in having the Administration
fill these two key positions at the Department. We are facing daunting
global challenges maintaining peace and security, protecting the
environment, promoting democracy and increasing respect for the rule of
law--that must be addressed with strong leadership from the Department
and Congress.
Toward this end, the Administration is working assiduously to fill
these positions on a permanent basis. We intend to submit the names of
highly qualified and distinguished leaders for the advice and consent
of the Senate shortly.
Note.--On April 2, the President nominated Mr. Frank Loy to be the
Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the Department. Mr. Loy
previously served in the Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary in
the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and as Director of the
Bureau of Refugee Programs. He is currently serving as chair of the
Foundation for a Civil Society.
u.n. arrearage
Question. With respect to the U.N. arrearage issue, what reforms
would the U.S. not achieve at the United Nations if we provide the
funding now as you have requested?
Answer. We are committed to a strong reform program in the U.N.
independent of our arrears payments. By paying our arrears we will be
able to continue to lead and drive an even more effective reform
effort. However, even if monies were appropriated for arrears now, our
conversations with U.N. member states indicate that we will not be
successful in achieving an assessment rate reduction to 20 percent in
the time frame envisaged in the Helms/Biden legislation.
Question. If we provide the $921 million that you have proposed in
the Supplemental at this point in time, aren't we simply providing
Representative Smith and the House with more leverage over the
Administration on the ``Mexico City'' issue?
Answer. We continue to believe the ``Mexico City'' issue should
stand on its own and not be linked to arrears payments to the U.N. and
other international organizations, either in the authorizing or
appropriations legislation. Therefore, we would hope that you would
consider favorably the President's supplemental request for $921
million without reference to ``Mexico City''.
Question. But, your budget does not assume consolidation if you
support the change, why not?
Answer. Because of the absence of Congressional authorization to do
so, the budget did not assume consolidation. The Department strongly
supports the consolidation and is prepared to submit consolidated
budgets in the future, when Congress grants us reorganization
authority.
planning for consolidation of the foreign affairs agencies
Question. Where do you stand in all your planning for
consolidation?
Answer. Last year the President decided that the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (ACDA) would be merged with the State Department
within one year, and the United States Information Agency (USIA) within
two years. The President also decided the Agency for International
Development (AID) would remain a distinct agency with a separate
appropriation, and the AID Administrator would be under the direct
authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State and
certain of AID's administrative functions would be shared with the
Department. This decision reflects the fact that non-proliferation and
arms control, public diplomacy, and international development are at
the heart of American foreign policy. Under the guidance of the
Reorganization Steering Committee, interagency task forces did an
enormous amount of preparatory work on reorganization planning last
year. ACDA Director John Holum has already been ``double-hatted'' as
the Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs, and we have begun reorganizing office space in the
State Department in a way which supports the consolidation of ACDA and
the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs. In personnel assignments we
are also actively exploring combined assignments with USIA for
administrative and secretarial personnel.
Our approach on all aspects of this merger and reorganization is to
create a structure which addresses the substantive issues responsibly,
eliminates unnecessary duplication and avoids unproductive disruption
for the dedicated personnel of all the agencies involved. Recently I
also asked Under Secretaries Bonnie Cohen and Tom Pickering to examine
other issues related to the reorganization, including internal State
Department streamlining and restructuring. Depending on the passage of
reorganization legislation, we are generally ready to begin
implementing the President's decision.
Where we have been able to move ahead, as in the double-hatting of
ACDA Director Holum as Acting Under Secretary, we have. But the bottom
line is that we still need legislation from the Congress before we can
move much beyond planning to implement the reorganization. I will
continue to make sure that the State Department works closely with
other foreign affairs agencies and Members and staff of the Congress so
that the final reorganization product is one which serves the best
interests of the country.
international affairs agency reorganization
Question. Why shouldn't this subcommittee provide all fiscal year
1999 appropriations for USIA and ACDA to the State Department? Wouldn't
this facilitate consolidation while we wait for the House firebrands to
stop holding the legislation?
Answer. The reorganization legislation as currently drafted
provides for consolidation of ACDA into the State Department by the end
of fiscal year 1999 and USIA into State by the end of fiscal year 2000.
If reorganization authority is enacted along these lines, the Congress
could in fact provide ACDA's fiscal year 1999 appropriation to the
Department of State. Separate appropriations for USIA would continue
for fiscal year 1999, but would be part of the Department's budget
request for fiscal year 2000. Appropriating all funding to the
Department of State in the absence of authorizing legislation would
result in a confusing and legally uncertain situation, and could
compromise the ability of the foreign affairs agencies to function
efficiently--potentially creating a resource and administrative crisis.
international rubber organization
Question. You know Madame Secretary, when you push for
International Organizations funding you are talking about groups like
the United Nations, but there are a lot of other organizations, some of
which are extremely important, directly related to American economic
interests. For example, the International Natural Rubber Organization
(INRO) which is of interest in the Southeast and Midwest which seeks to
hold down the price of rubber to consumer nations or the International
Copper Study Group which is important to Senator Domenici and Western
States. In working with the State Department these groups feel they get
the short-shrift while ``humanitarian organizations'' are given
priority. Yet these organizations are about jobs here at home.
Our conference report asked the Department to reprogram funds to
ensure that the United States retained its vote in the INRO. Even
though this only cost $100,000, I had to start objecting to other
Department reprogrammings to get this bill paid. But your Department
only paid up until April, and on June 30 we will lose our vote and all
rights of participation in the organization after August 30.
Why is it so difficult to get your assistance for an issue that
costs so little? This is important to both Chairman Helms and me.
Answer. The Administration shares Congressional concerns over
arrears to INRO as well as to all international organizations and have
spoken out strongly in support of these and other organizations. As you
know, legislation authorizing payment of arrears has not passed the
Congress. We are examining whether the Administration has the authority
under current legislation, and whether there are sufficient funds
appropriated for current assessments to allow us to do so in the case
of INRO.
international cooperative administrative support services [icass]
Question. Can you give us a status report on how this ``ICASS''
system is working?
Answer. The International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services (ICASS) system, has truly resulted in a revolutionary change
in the way we manage the delivery of shared administrative support
services and distribute the associated costs (approximately $600
million) to U.S. Government agencies located at our diplomatic missions
abroad. Fully implemented at 162 posts on October 1, 1997, ICASS is a
remarkable interagency accomplishment that took just 30 months to go
from initial concept to an operational reality.
While in its earliest stages, ICASS will change for the better the
way administrative services are delivered at each mission. ICASS has
established locally empowered Councils representing all agencies at
post to manage and evaluate all shared administrative services.
Focusing on the needs of the customer, the Councils have clear
financial and performance information to evaluate service alternatives,
and share responsibility with the service provider for providing the
most cost effective and responsive administrative support services.
ICASS is still a work in progress as it evolves towards a system
that ``allocates to each department and agency the full cost of its
presence outside the United States.'' Now that the basic mechanisms of
ICASS are in place, surpassing most Washington expectations, the
emphasis needs to shift to the central management aspects of ICASS that
will lead to improved services and lower costs.
As the Department of State's OIG stated, ``Although it appears that
ICASS is functioning successfully as an instrument for better cost
allocation and enhanced financial management, it is only beginning to
show some cost savings and efficiencies and has yet to prove itself as
an instrument for reducing overall administrative costs overseas, or
for effecting significant change in the delivery of administrative
services.'' Progress has already been made in achieving this goal.
Department of State procedures for providing overseas support are being
systematically reengineered to improve their efficiency and
effectiveness. Post ICASS Councils are reviewing their local services
and recommending changes designed to improve quality and lower costs.
Leadership, communication, sharing best practices, training,
incentives, and increased accountability are all contributing to ensure
ICASS' ultimate success.
Question. Are the other agencies paying their bills?
Answer. Agencies will receive ICASS bills in early April during the
first year of actual ICASS operation, and we anticipate having no
problems with the bills.
The ICASS billing process is a marked change from the previous
billing method. Two ICASS bills are sent to the ICASS agencies'
headquarters each fiscal year. The initial ICASS bill is based on the
initial ICASS budget submissions from posts. At this point, agencies
are asked to pay eighty percent of their ICASS bill in order to
capitalize the ICASS Working Capital Fund (WCF) and in recognition of
the fact that the ICASS bills will change before the end of the fiscal
year. ICASS agencies have been informed of the need to make payments as
quickly as possible to keep the ICASS WCF solvent and have worked with
the Office of Management and Budget to apportion their funds in order
to make this eighty percent payment.
The final ICASS bill is based upon the ICASS mid-year budget
submission from posts. Agencies will be asked to pay the incremental
difference between their initial payment and their final bill. The
final payment will be due before the end of the fiscal year.
nafta
Question. Recently, the press has been filled with reports that
NAFTA has increased the amount of drugs flowing from Mexico to the
United States. A task force of border law enforcement officials charged
that drug traffickers are exploiting increased commercial links under
NAFTA. In addition, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Agency
(``DEA'') said NAFTA is ``basically opening up the door for illegal
drugs.'' Do you believe that NAFTA has increased the amount of drugs in
the United States?
Answer. The flow of illicit drugs from and through Mexico is a
longstanding and serious problem, which predates the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by many years. NAFTA reduced tariffs and
trade barriers, but it did not relax customs inspections.
NAFTA has not resulted in a significant increase in the flow of
illicit drugs to the United States. In fact, recent statistics indicate
that the overall flow of illicit drugs from or through Mexico to the
United States in 1997 declined somewhat. World production of cocaine is
down by 100 metric tons, Mexico's cocaine seizures rose last year by
over 10 metric tons, and we have detected fewer cocaine shipments
through Mexico over the past year. Likewise, we believe that drug
production in Mexico has declined.
Decisions made by drug traffickers about production levels and
smuggling routes and methods are most affected by the level and
intensity of law enforcement efforts and by the level of drug
consumption in their target markets, not by levels of legitimate
commerce. Mexico's cooperation is essential to an effective U.S. anti-
drug program, so we are working very hard to continue to build strong
working relationships between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement
agencies, as well as to encourage cooperation with legitimate Mexican
exporters. The spirit of cooperation generated by NAFTA has enhanced
anti-drug cooperation.
weather satellites
Question. Madame Secretary, I understand that an agreement with the
Europeans critical to the success of U.S. civil/military polar
satellite convergence--with savings to us on the order of $2.1
billion--is being held up in the State Department with lawyers
unwilling to clear on language agreed to by all involved USG agencies
in June 1996 and vetted back then through NATO. What's the holdup,
given the urgent nature of this cooperation?
Answer. The agreement in question was negotiated by NOAA and DOD
with the European Meteorological Satellite Organization (EUMETSAT). The
Department's review of the final text of the agreement revealed a
possible inconsistency between the data denial annex, which contains
important provisions on denying critical data to adversaries in crisis
or war, and the Presidential Directive on ``Convergency of U.S.-Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Systems'' (PDD/NSTC-2 of
May 5, 1994). We have suggested to NOAA and DOD various ways of
resolving this issue, and we remain hopeful that a solution can be
found. To allow crucial cooperative activities to go forward in the
meantime, we approved an interim agreement with EUMETSAT.
Question. Can you assure us that State will commit to resolving the
issue to allow the NOAA Administrator to sign the agreement when the
Director of the European Weather Satellite Agency comes to Washington
in early May?
Answer. We hope that NOAA and DOD will agree to a satisfactory
approach for resolving this issue in time for the agreement to be
signed in early May. The Department is committed to working with them
toward that end.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
east-west center funding
Question. Might I request that you share with me the thinking
behind the disparate treatment of the East-West Center?
Answer. The East-West Center has not been singled out by the State
Department for less favorable treatment than the North-South Center or
the Asia Foundation. USIA's fiscal year 1999 request to OMB sought an
East-West Center appropriation of $12.3 million, a slight increase of
the enacted fiscal year 1998 level. The State Department concurred in
that request, taking note of such factors as those cited by Senator
Inouye during the hearing, including the great importance we attach to
the region and the value of the exchanges and research undertaken by
the East-West Center. The East-West Center and North-South Center
requests were initially rejected in their entirety. In the final stages
of the appeals process, however, USIA and the Department intervened to
secure $5 million for the East-West Center. Similarly, we were
successful, on appeal, in obtaining a $2.5 million appropriation for
the North-South Center.
The Department requested an increase for the Asia Foundation
specifically to accommodate the President's $5 million China Rule of
Law Initiative. The activities envisioned in the initiative--field
work, legal education, judicial training and exchanges of technical
experts--fall more squarely within the experience and competence of the
Asia Foundation and justified its selection to administer the
initiative.
Given the nature of deficit reduction pressures, we feel that the
exchange centers did as well as could have been hoped and gains by one
did not come at the expense of the others.
palestinian effort against terrorism
Question. Would you characterize the Palestinian effort against
terrorism and violence as meeting this standard? How would you describe
the current state of Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation?
Answer. Our standard for Palestinian compliance with its security
commitments remains 100 percent effort, 24 hours per day, 365 days per
year, both in terms of the Palestinians' unilateral actions to fight
terror, and in their cooperation with Israel. From the beginning of the
Oslo process, we have emphasized to the Palestinian leadership that
maximum efforts on security were critical to sustaining the negotiating
process. The ideas we are currently discussing with the parties would
create a structure to ensure that the fight against terror will not be
episodic, but will be comprehensive, systematic and enduring.
We have seen, especially over the past several months, a concerted
Palestinian effort against those who would threaten peace with terror
and violence. The Palestinian Authority moved quickly to announce that
it had concluded that the late March killing of a HAMAS bomb maker was
the result of an internal HAMAS dispute, thus undercutting public
accusations that Israel was responsible. This helped defuse real
potential dangers for violence and terrorism. The PA has taken a range
of actions against the HAMAS leadership and infrastructure, including
widespread arrests of HAMAS activists and leaders. These steps,
undertaken in the face of criticism from the Palestinian street over
the ongoing impasse in the peace process, are significant and positive.
Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu described the PA actions as important.
This improvement needs to be sustained and further steps need to be
taken. We will continue to press the Palestinian Authority to exert all
possible efforts to prevent terror.
security cooperation and peace
Question. Do you still believe that without security cooperation,
the peace process will ultimately fail? If so, then how can the people
of Israel be expected to support giving even more land to the
Palestinian Authority if they are convinced that the Palestinian
Authority is sincere in meeting its most fundamental responsibility?
Answer. Maximum Palestinian efforts on security--unilaterally and
in cooperation with Israel--remain essential for success of the peace
process. That is why we have consistently pressed the Palestinians for
100 percent effort and why the U.S. ideas we are currently discussing
with the parties includes stepped up security actions on the part of
the Palestinian Authority.
The Oslo process is one of partnership, each side meeting its
commitments and addressing each other's concerns. This is a reciprocal
process. The Palestinians must meet their commitments on security and
non-security issues. The parties' meeting their commitments--including
Israel's commitment to the principle of land for peace--remains the
best hope for reaching further agreements between Israel and the
Palestinians, and paving the way for a comprehensive peace. That
comprehensive peace, in turn, provides the best guarantee of the long-
term peace with security in the region that the people of Israel and
the peoples of the entire region deserve but have too long been denied.
plans for moving the u.s. embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem
Question. Being less than a year and a half away, what plans have
been made for the Embassy move? Will it be possible to open an embassy
by the required time? If not, since it is almost three years since the
bill's passage, what steps can we see demonstrating that the process
has begun?
Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
undermine the peace process. Accordingly, we did not think it would
have been prudent to expend the taxpayers' money on construction
related activities in light of uncertainties about timing and final
decisions.
The State Department has just submitted its report to Congress on
the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Even from the beginning of the Act's entry
into force, it would not have been possible to construct a new embassy
within the time frame called for in the legislation. However, we have
worked to ensure that it would be possible to open an embassy in
Jerusalem quickly through non-construction options. As a result of our
efforts such as real estate surveys, we are now better prepared to
promptly lease space. We are also working to preserve our options for
constructing an embassy, in part by trying to ensure that ongoing
construction by other developers near the site be in conformity with
previously established requirements worked out between the U.S. and the
Israeli government.
noting birthplace of jerusalem in u.s. passports
Question. Please comment on the fact that the passports of American
children born in Jerusalem say ``Jerusalem'' as place of birth, instead
of ``Israel,'' when everywhere else in the world the country is listed?
Does the U.S. Administration recognize any part of Jerusalem as being
part of Israel?
Answer. The practice of entering ``Jerusalem'' only in the passport
is a long-standing one. This is a very difficult issue.
However, given the agreement by Israel and the Palestinians
themselves to leave discussion of Jerusalem to the permanent status
talks and our determination not to take steps that could undermine
permanent status negotiations between the parties, we do not believe
that this is an appropriate time to change that practice.
Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that Jerusalem is one of
the issues to be discussed in the permanent status negotiations. It
would be counter-productive for the U.S. to take any actions that could
be interpreted as prejudging this sensitive issue.
architectural designs for an embassy in jerusalem
Question. In fiscal year 1998, $9.5 million was appropriated for
the architectural designs for the embassy in Jerusalem. Has the money
been used? For what? If not, do you plan on using those funds for the
architectural designs? When?
Answer. There is no issue related to the negotiations between
Israel and the Arabs that is more sensitive and volatile than
Jerusalem. The President has made clear that he would take no action to
undermine the peace process.
Accordingly, we did not think it would have been prudent to expend
the taxpayers' money on construction-related activities in light of
uncertainties about timing and final decisions. Let me stress, however,
that this does not prejudice our ability to establish an embassy in
Jerusalem should that decision be made. In the meantime, we continue to
pursue non-construction options to do so, and we are now better
prepared, for example, to promptly lease space in Jerusalem. We are
also working to preserve our options for constructing an embassy, in
part by trying to ensure that ongoing construction by other developers
near the site be in conformity with previously established requirements
worked out between the U.S. and the Israeli government.
aid to israel
Question. The Israeli government has recently put forth its initial
thoughts about reducing economic assistance from the U.S., with the 10-
12 year goal of phasing economic assistance to zero. The proposal
fulfills a promise made by Prime Minister Netanyahu to a joint meeting
of Congress in 1996. Would you please comment on the Israeli proposal?
Answer. In late January, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Neteman
began discussions with Members of Congress and Administration officials
on a proposal that would gradually reduce Israel's annual $1.2 billion
economic assistance to zero, while phasing in an increase in military
assistance over the same 10-12 year period.
We welcome Minister Ne'eman's initiative and note that it follows
the initial efforts suggested by the Administration in fiscal year 1997
and fiscal year 1998 to begin to adjust traditional bilateral
assistance levels to the Middle East. We have asked the Israeli
government for clarification of certain aspects of its offer, and are
still formulating our response. We have also asked the Government of
Egypt to provide its views on future U.S. bilateral economic
assistance. We hope to work out a formula for fiscal year 1999
assistance to the Middle East that meets our full range of regional
requirements.
Question. Please talk about the military balance in the region, and
how the efforts by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya to get weapons of mass
destruction factor into that. What more can we do with Israel to
bolster its qualitative edge?
Answer. We remain very concerned about the large imbalance in the
size and military capabilities of Iraq and those of our friends in the
Gulf. Having militaries many times larger than those of the GCC, Iran
and Iraq are in a position to use their forces or to threaten that use
to apply strong coercive pressures contrary to U.S. interests. The
presence of U.S. forces in relationship with the United States,
including strong military sales and training programs, are essential
elements in helping the Gulf states resist such coercion, and in also
ensuring the security of other friends in the region, such as Israel,
Egypt and Jordan. The prospect of the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction by Iran and Iraq, and by others such as Libya and Syria,
would materially affect the regional balance contrary to U.S. interests
across the entire region and would strengthen the coercive pressures
any of these states could bring to bear against any of the countries
friendly to the U.S. in the region and potentially beyond it. We are
also concerned about the negative impact the prospect of Syrian
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction could have on the Middle
East peace process.
We are committed to doing all we can to help reduce the real threat
posed to Israel and our other regional partners by WMD and advanced
delivery systems. The United States helps Israel meet this threat as
part of our commitment to Israel's security and to sustaining and
enhancing its qualitative military edge. The U.S. helps Israel address
strategic threats through a combination of actions and policies,
including provision of $1.8 billion annually to Israel for defense. Our
active role in the Middle East Peace Process seeks, in part, to enhance
Israel's security by reducing the regional threat and promoting
dialogue. We are also involved with Israel in joint research projects
to develop weapons systems, such as the Arrow anti-tactical ballistic
missile system and the Tactical High Energy Laser, to counter the
missile threat. The administration's nonproliferation and export
control policies also serve to enhance the security of Israel and our
other regional parties by seeking to control the spread of weapons and
technologies in the Middle East and throughout the world.
We are committed to continuing to support and cooperate with Israel
on security matters in order to preserve Israel's qualitative military
edge and to reduce the serious threat posed by WMD and missile systems.
israeli weog membership at the united nations
Question. Israel is the only country in the U.N. system denied
access to a regional grouping--the mechanism through which countries
are chosen to sit on the U.N.'s powerful committees, including the
Security Council.
What are we doing to correct this? What is holding up Israel's
efforts to gain admittance into the Western European and Others Group
(WEOG)? Which countries are opposed to Israel's admittance to WEOG?
What more can we do to increase our efforts to get Israel into WEOG?
Answer. The United States strongly supports Israel's efforts to be
included as a member of the WEOG at the United Nations. We believe that
Israel, as a long-standing member of the U.N., should be granted the
same privilege of belonging to a regional grouping and to participate
fully in all activities of the U.N., as have all other members of the
United Nations. Because of its geographical location, Israel would
naturally belong to the Asia regional grouping, but this has not proved
possible to date because of the strong opposition of Arab and other
members of the Asia group. As a result, Israel and the United States
have sought Israel's temporary admission to the WEOG until such time as
Israel's formal admission to the Asia group becomes possible.
Over the past several years, the United States has actively pushed
Israel's candidacy for temporary WEOG membership through repeated
bilateral contacts with other WEOG member governments. In 1996,
multiple demarches and consultations were undertaken with foreign
ministers in WEOG governments, including the United Kingdom, Austria,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Madrid,
Sweden, Turkey, Belgium, Australia, and New Zealand. As a result of
joint efforts by the U.S., Israel, and Belgium, Israel's bid to join
WEOG received support from some of WEOG's members at that time.
Initially, the United Kingdom and Germany were opposed to Israeli
membership in WEOG, but persistent efforts by the U.S. eventually
garnered support from both governments. In addition, several WEOG
members, while never expressing outright support for Israel's bid,
indicated after talks with the U.S. that they would go along with an EU
consensus in support of Israel's candidacy. In 1997, Administration
officials have continued to press WEOG members bilaterally and through
regional groupings on this issue.
The WEOG has yet to reach a consensus on Israeli membership due to
continuing internal disagreements. Opponents of Israeli membership have
repeatedly said Israel belongs only in the Asian regional group; they
are also concerned that temporary membership will evolve into permanent
membership affecting already tight WEOG competition for regionally
allocated seats in U.N. bodies. In addition, opponents are worried
about setting a precedent and opening the door for WEOG membership to
Baltic and Central European countries. Moreover, some of the stated
reluctance on the part of WEOG members has stemmed from perceptions of
Israel's role in the stalemate in the peace process.
Israel is now advocating a temporary membership in WEOG that
includes a two-year moratorium on Israeli candidates for WEOG seats in
U.N. bodies. The United Kingdom and Germany continue to support Israel;
primary opponents are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland,
Italy, Spain and New Zealand.
On November 21, 1997, the United States Permanent Representative to
the United Nations, Ambassador Bill Richardson, met with WEOG members
in New York to reaffirm U.S. support for admitting Israel on a
temporary basis. Ambassador Richardson said that three and a half years
after WEOG first considered the question of Israel's temporary
membership, Israel remains the only member state of the United Nations
that is denied membership in a regional group. He noted that Israel is
singled out for discriminatory treatment and that the isolation of
Israel in the U.N. is not in the interests of the Western Group,
Israel, or the Middle East peace process. Ambassador Richardson
stressed that Israel's eventual goal is membership in a regional
grouping with its neighbors; however, as a democratic Westernized
country with a market economy, Israel is completely compatible with the
WEOG. He noted also that Israel has offered not to compete with other
WEOG members for regionally-allocated seats in U.N. bodies for the
first few years of its membership, and that Israel has significant
expertise to contribute to the U.N. He urged WEOG members to welcome
Israel's bid for temporary membership.
In response, Australia, Canada and Norway spoke in favor of
Israel's admission; Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the EU, stated
the EU as a group had determined that the time is not right to grant
Israel's request. Luxembourg underscored, however, that Israel's
candidacies to U.N. bodies where there is no WEOG competition, and
where the candidacy is not allocated to another regional group.
During his resent visit to Israel, U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan voiced his support for Israel's inclusion in one of the regional
groups and full participation thereby in the U.N.'s several bodies.
Although the decision on membership in a regional group rests upon the
countries, not with the U.N., we welcome the Secretary General's public
support of Israel's cause.
The United States will continue to exploit every available
diplomatic opportunity to engage the EU, its individual members, and
other members of WEOG on behalf of Israel's temporary membership. As in
the past, we will continue to coordinate our diplomatic efforts closely
with those of the Government of Israel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
new agreement with iraq on weapons inspections
Question. Why should we believe that he [Saddam Hussein] will honor
a new agreement?
Answer. We are highly skeptical that Saddam Hussein will fully
honor this or any other agreement signed by his government--experience
clearly indicates that he has little if any regard for international
law, and that his word is not good.
That is precisely why we, UNSCOM, the other members of the Security
Council, and the Secretary General are united in our insistence that
Iraq's commitment to provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted
access to UNSCOM and the IAEA must be tested thoroughly and completely.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1154, which we supported, states
clearly that the ``gravest consequences'' will follow if Iraq continues
its past practices of obstruction, deception, and concealment. We hope
Saddam Hussein heeds this clear warning.
response to iraqi violations
Question. If Saddam Hussein again puts up obstacles to weapons
inspectors or bars them from facilities, what will the Administration's
response be?
Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1154 states clearly that a
violation of Iraq's obligation to provide immediate, unconditional, and
unrestricted access to UNSCOM and the IAEA would have the ``severest
consequences'' for Iraq.
The Administration has also repeatedly stated that it is prepared
to use military force to compel Iraqi compliance with its obligations,
and to diminish Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors or
reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction and prohibited missile
programs. U.S. and coalition forces remaining in the region are
prepared to carry out such action if necessary.
iraq: long-term plans
Question. What is the Administration's long-term plan? Do we
explore ways to weaken Hussein by, for example, dramatically increasing
support for opposition movements? Do we maintain a strong military
presence in the Gulf forever? Are we planning for a day when Hussein is
no longer in power? How?
Answer. As long as Iraq continues to pose a threat to its neighbors
in the region, to international peace and stability, and to our own
vital interests, we will act to contain and diminish that threat using
the most effective tools at our disposal.
For the past seven years, we have successfully contained the
threats posed by Iraq by: Enforcing multinational sanctions on Iraq,
which denies Saddam Hussein the resources he would need to reconstitute
his WMD and conventional military forces; supporting the efforts of
UNSCOM and the IAEA to detect and destroy all aspects of Iraq's
prohibited WMD and long range missile programs; and maintaining a
significant military presence in the region to deter Iraqi aggression,
and to enforce U.N. resolutions.
We intend to continue efforts as long as necessary until Iraq
demonstrates its peaceful intentions by complying fully and completely
with all its international obligations, as laid out in more than 40
U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
Over the past seven years, we have also worked with human rights
organizations and, as appropriate, Iraqi opposition elements to draw
attention to the human rights abuses of the Baghdad regime and to
develop a viable alternative to Saddam.
In my March 26, 1997 remarks at Georgetown, I made clear that a
change in government in Iraq could lead to a change in U.S. policy. We
stand ready, in coordination with our allies and friends, to enter
rapidly into a dialogue with a successor regime.
bosnian serb issues
Question. Do you agree that facilitating the voluntary surrender or
transfer to The War Crimes Tribunal of the indictees reportedly living
in Banja Luka would make an important political statement about Prime
Minister Dodik's commitment to ensuring implementation of the war
crimes provisions of the Dayton Agreement?
Answer. Yes. The U.S. has consistently called upon all parties to
the Dayton Peace Accord to live up to their commitment of full
cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.
The new, strongly pro-Dayton government of the Bosnian Serb entity
has publicly stated it is willing to facilitate the surrender of
indictees, and has taken concrete steps to improve cooperation with the
ICTY. It has allowed ICTY investigations in the Republika Srpska,
including the search of government facilities, and it has supported the
establishment of an ICTY office in Banja Luka. These actions already
have induced a number of persons publicly indicted by the ICTY to turn
themselves in. We fully expect that as pro-Dayton forces consolidate
their rule in the Bosnian Serb entity, their cooperation with the ICTY
will broaden and improve further.
Question. Did the Prime Minister indicate that he would put a
priority on facilitating the voluntary surrender or transfer of the
indictees living in Banja Luka and all 43 indictees when you met?
Answer. Yes. Prime Minister Dodik agreed on the need to prosecute
war criminals, both in terms of compliance with Dayton and to bring a
sense of justice to the RS. He has publicly stated that indictees
should surrender and has actively facilitated the surrenders of several
indictees since taking office.
Question. Is the State Department providing such evidence to Prime
Minister Dodik, and are we expecting any changes in his cabinet?
Answer. We have discussed with Prime Minister Dodik the need to
distance himself unequivocally from persons suspected of war crimes. To
that end, we have shared with him information on a member of his
cabinet about whom I have concerns regarding his activities and
associations during the war (Justice Minister Petko Cancar).
Mr. Dodik promised to investigate the matter. We have made it clear
to him that the U.S. could not actively support a Bosnian Serb
government that includes persons indicted or strongly suspected of war
crimes. Prime Minister Dodik understands our position fully. He has
promised to remove any member of his cabinet found to have committed
war crimes.
Question. Prime Minister Dodik now has a Finance Minister who is
not loyal to Karadzic. Can you assure us that in the future those loyal
to Karadzic and the Pale government--including the Bosnian Serb Co-
President of the Federation--will not be involved in determining where
any portion of loans goes within Republika Srpska?
Answer. Pale and Karadzic have never been involved in determining
where any portion of IFI loans goes within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
they will not be in the future.
Our assistance, and that of other international donors, strengthens
the moderate, pro-Dayton government of Prime Minister Dodik. This
assistance and Mr. Dodik's reform measures will continue to break the
political control of the Pale hard-liners in the RS, who already have
no say regarding the allocation of our assistance in the RS.
As an additional measure, U.S. and international experts are
currently helping improve Bosnian--including Bosnian Serb--customs and
fiscal procedures in order to render the Bosnian public finance system
more efficient and curtail possibilities for corruption. Consequently,
the Pale hard-liners' control over public finances is rapidly
decreasing. They no longer hold key positions in the entity government,
and the system is less and less open for them to abuse. Continued
support for this reform process--and explicitly for Dodik--is the best
way of ensuring that a pro-Dayton Serb is elected to replace Bosnian
Presidency Member Momcilo Krajisnik in September.
funding requested for yugoslavia war crimes tribunal
Question. How will the increase in funding being requested in
fiscal year 1999 be used? What are the top funding priorities for the
Tribunals? Do they need prosecutors? Investigators? More judges?
Courtroom space? Equipment? Supplies? Please indicate how much or many
they expect they will need.
Answer. The United States expects that during 1998 and 1999 there
will be an increasing number of indictees awaiting trial at both
Tribunals. The Tribunals will need additional resources to try arriving
indictees and to pursue a number of major investigations that the
Tribunals must complete to fulfill their mandates. For 1999, this will
require a significant increase in their workload and, hence, their
budget.
The Tribunal's budget is set by the United Nations on a calendar
year basis and is not public until October or November. Based on this
process, the United States will not know the precise Tribunal budget
needs for CY 1999 until after the start of the U.S. fiscal year. For
example, it is not possible to know now the right mix for 1999 between
prosecutions (including costs of trial support) and investigations.
We believe that the Tribunals' needs for CY 1999 will include
additional judges, prosecutors, investigators, courtroom support
personnel, expenses of investigations, expenses associated with trials,
courtroom space, translation and interpretation capacity, and witness
transportation and security.
Question. How will the additional assistance help expedite trials?
Answer. The additional assistance requested will help alleviate
capacity constraints now facing the Tribunals, which is important to
allow suspects to be tried in a reasonable amount of time. The length
of time an indictee must await trial is an important factor in
facilitating further voluntary surrenders for both Tribunals.
Constraints on the capacity of the Tribunals to try suspects in
custody include (a) the number of physical courtrooms available to hold
trials, (b) the number of judges who can hear trials and deliberate on
cases already heard, (c) courtroom staff, including victim and witness
unit staff to handle the logistics of bringing witnesses to the court,
housing them safely, and arranging for their return to their homes, (d)
investigators to locate and interview witnesses who have previously
given statements to ensure that those witnesses are available to give
evidence at trial, and (e) prosecution and defense counsel to prepare
cases for trial and to appear in court. The additional assistance
requested will expand the Tribunals' capacities in these areas, thereby
reducing the length of time it will take to resolve the cases of all
those now in custody.
Question. Both Tribunals received large increases in their budgets
from the U.N. in fiscal year 1998. Please indicate what the U.N. has
budgeted for each tribunal in fiscal year 1998. Is this assistance
adequate for them to carry out their responsibilities fairly and in an
expeditious fashion?
Answer. The ICTY's budget for calendar year 1998 is $68.83 million
gross and $62.33 million net. The ICTR's budget is $58.99 million gross
and $50.88 million net. (The United States' share of the tribunals'
budgets is based on the net figure.)
We believe both tribunals will carry out their responsibilities
fairly. We are concerned, however, that if trials proceed at the pace
some have so far, and if additional resources are not made available,
some trials of accused now in custody might not begin until the year
2000. This is an obvious deterrent to further voluntary surrenders, and
both we and the Tribunals are looking into ways to address this
situation. A number of the options under consideration, such as
increasing the number of courtrooms or increasing the number of judges,
will require additional resources.
funding for war crimes tribunal
Question. Ambassador Gelbard reportedly said at a public forum
organized by the U.S. Institute of Peace, ``The United States believes
that a significant number of indictments will not stand up in court. We
will not risk the lives of any soldier or anybody else to try to
apprehend indicted war criminals if we believe that the cases are
weak.''
If this is the position of the U.S. government, what is the
rationale for increasing funding for the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia?
Answer. The Hague Tribunal's need for additional resources reflects
the dramatic increase in the number of persons in custody--an increase
largely due to U.S. government and Ambassador Gelbard's efforts to
facilitate the surrender of indictees. Indictees include, but are not
limited to, the use of troops. We remain committed to seeing that all
indictees have their day in court.
To assist with the backlog of cases before the ICTY, the Dutch, the
U.S. and the United Kingdom have contributed funds for two new
courtrooms. We are considering other proposals to make the Tribunal's
work even more efficient. We do not want undue delays to be a
disincentive to persons indicted by the Tribunal to turn themselves in.
We need to provide the ICTY with the resources to administer justice
speedily and fairly.
There is no doubt that war crimes have been committed in Croatia
and in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war. In order to overcome
ethnic tensions and establish a lasting peace, these crimes must be
made public, the perpetrators brought to justice, and individual guilt
allocated.
This does not mean that every case investigated by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will
lead to an indictment, or that every trial will result in a conviction.
The Hague Tribunal applies the most stringent standards of rule of law,
including the presumption that a defendant is innocent unless proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
imf/u.n. arrears/population assistance
Question. In light of the Asian financial crisis and the recent
confrontation with Iraq over its failure to comply with U.N.
resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction program, I think it's
irresponsible to hold funding for the IMF and U.N. hostage to
restrictions on private family planning organizations, especially when
U.S. law already prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to perform or
lobby for abortion. Our decisions should be based on an evaluation of
their importance to U.S. economic and security interests.
What is the reaction of countries abroad when the Congress doesn't
consider policies on their merits and links vital national security
issues with unrelated issues? How does this impact on your work?
Answer. I share your commitment to advancing U.S. economic and
security issues. Our actions around the world show a consistent
determination to foster security, economic stability and human rights
and democracy.
Our actions in the Asian Financial Crisis demonstrate our
determination to honor our commitment. From Indonesia to Korea we have
stepped forward in support of the IMF to assist countries hit by
economic difficulties. At the same time, we have stressed that our
support of regional security and of human rights remain unchanged.
When other countries do not agree with our policies, or with
concerns raised by the United States Congress, we undertake to explain
the concerns which motivate these policies and concerns.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to explain concerns of the Congress
when we refuse to meet essential international obligations. We must,
for example, make good on our debt to the U.N. As the President said in
his State of the Union Address, ``More and more, we are working with
other nations to achieve our common goals. If we want America to lead,
we've got to set a good example.'' We will soon confront another
challenge to our leadership.
We must provide the $18 billion for our IMF quota increase and NAB
or risk undermining our leadership position in an organization critical
both to our prosperity and security.
algeria
Question. What steps is the U.S. currently taking to support such a
mission?
Answer. The Department of State has on several occasions publicly
condemned the atrocities being committed in Algeria. We deplore
violence from any quarter and have urged strict respect for human
rights by all parties. Our Ambassador to Algiers, Cameron Hume,
recently visited the site of one of the massacres in solidarity with
the victims.
We have repeatedly asked the Algerian government to facilitate
visits by international non-governmental organizations (NGO's) to
Algeria in order to inquire into the human rights situation there and
correspondingly we have urged these organizations to go to Algeria to
perform such fact-finding missions.
We also continue to urge the Algerian government to accept a visit
by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Summary, Extrajudicial and Arbitrary
Executions or the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.
The real issue, however, is increased transparency which cannot be
obtained without the willing cooperation of the Algerian government and
even then, objective reporting will be difficult. We continue to
maintain our focus on transparency and the quality of information
gathered, rather than on the particular means by which that
transparency is attained.
Question. Will the U.S. support a resolution about Algeria at the
U.N. Human Rights Committee meetings in March of this year?
Answer. We continue to support any means of transparency which
would serve to shed more light on the situation in Algeria, including
increased access for foreign journalists, nongovernmental organizations
(NGO's) and foreign parliamentarians. We are discussing ways to bring
about more openness at the current session of the U.N. Human Rights
Commission (UNHRC).
In our efforts towards furthering transparency in Algeria, we
continue to encourage the Algerian government to facilitate visits by
internationals NGO's, journalists and parliamentarians, as well as
encouraging these groups to undertake such visits. We have determined
to maintain our focus on transparency and the quality of information
gathered, rather than on the particular means by which that
transparency is attained.
trafficking in women
Question. What steps is the U.S. taking to combat the growing
problem of trafficking of women?
Answer. The U.S. is committed to combating trafficking in women and
girls worldwide.
The President's Interagency Council on Women established a senior
governmental working group on trafficking to coordinate the USG
response on trafficking in women and girls. The group focuses on the
areas of prevention, victim assistance and protection, and enforcement.
The working group consults closely with NGO's and members of Congress.
--We are working jointly with the European Union, the Group of Eight,
and the U.N., as well as the Governments of Israel, Italy, and
Ukraine. For example, as directed by the President on March 11,
1998, we are responding to the Government of Ukraine's request
to jointly develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to
combat trafficking from and to Ukraine. This U.S.-Ukraine
cooperation can be expanded to other countries.
--As directed by the President on March 11, 1998, the Interagency
Council on Women will organize a conference for governmental
and non-governmental representatives from source, transit, and
destination countries and representatives from international
organizations to call attention to the issue of trafficking in
women and girls and to develop strategies for combating this
egregious human rights violation.
--The USG trains foreign border control and immigration officials to
enhance their ability to implement border security and to
identify traffickers and victims of trafficking. We also train
foreign judges and prosecutors on enhance enforcement of laws
against trafficking.
--The State Department funded the development of a comprehensive
database on U.S. and international legislation protecting women
and children from commercial sexual abuse. The project analyzes
laws, penalties, sentencing patterns, reporting requirements,
law enforcement capabilities, extradition practices and victim
assistance programs. An expected outcome of this project is
prototype legislation and guidelines on enforcement and victim
protection.
State Department consular presence worldwide works with source,
transit, and destination countries to develop strategies for protecting
victims and expanding and enhancing anti-fraud training to stop the
international movement of trafficked women and girls.
The State Department developed a brochure targeted to potential
victims of trafficking. The U.S. embassies in Poland and Ukraine
distribute these brochures in the consular waiting areas and beyond. We
plan to place the brochures in other U.S. embassies around the world.
Question. What level of budget resources are being devoted to
address this problem by region?
Answer. Resources for combating trafficking in women and girls are
woven into humanitarian assistance projects and law enforcement
training programs around the world. Below are some examples in which
resources for trafficking are clearly identifiable.
--The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) has
allocated $320,000 for a U.S. and European Union joint
information campaign to combat trafficking in women and girls
and to warn potential victims of methods used by traffickers.
Our public awareness campaign is in Ukraine and the European
Union supports a similar campaign in Poland. After July 1998,
the U.S. will sponsor a seminar in Ukraine to evaluate the
effectiveness of the dissemination campaign. If our campaign is
deemed successful, it could be adapted and expanded to other
critical source and transit countries worldwide. In the fiscal
year 1998 budget request PRM has included funding to continue
this prevention work.
--The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)
allocated $2.18 million in fiscal year 1998 to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) to conduct immigration
training to deter migrant trafficking, including trafficking in
women and children, in the former Soviet Union, Central America
and South Africa.
--INL also allocated $85,000 to the INS attaches in Vienna and Moscow
to conduct two conferences for immigration officials in the
region on migrant trafficking and trafficking in women and
children.
--INL awarded a partial grant of $233,000 in fiscal year 1997 to the
University of Minnesota to develop a comprehensive database on
U.S. and international legislation protecting women and
children from commercial sexual exploitation.
Question. Does the State Department believe that public education/
awareness programs can be effective in combating this problem?
Answer. Yes, the State Department believes that public education/
awareness programs can be effective in combating trafficking in women.
Following a Presidential directive on March 11, 1998, the State
Department, the Department of Justice, and the President's Interagency
Council on Women is working to increase national and international
awareness about trafficking in women and girls. The State Department is
working with USIA, as directed by the President, to expand public
awareness campaigns targeted to warn potential victims of the methods
used by traffickers.
In a March 11, 1998 Executive Memorandum the President declared
that this type of public education will ensure young women and girls
are educated about this problem so that they will not fall prey to
traffickers' tactics of coercion, violence, fraud, and deceit.
Question. Does the U.S. government fund public education awareness
programs? In which countries are they located?
Answer. The U.S. has an information campaign in Ukraine underway.
In November 1997, the U.S. and the European Union formally adopted a
joint initiative to prevent trafficking in women from and through
Eastern Europe and the New Independent States (NIS). The U.S.-EU
initiative features an information campaign aimed at warning potential
victims of methods used by traffickers. Local border and consular
officials are also reached with the information which can help them
deter trafficking in women from third countries around the region.
The joint information campaign, which officially began on April 1,
1998, will be initiated in a pilot project in Poland and Ukraine, two
countries whose governments have shown a commitment to confronting
migration problems and working cooperatively to protect potential
victims of trafficking. In July 1998, the U.S. will sponsor a seminar
in Ukraine which will bring together all entities involved in
disseminating the campaign message and key target groups to evaluate
our progress. If our campaign is deemed successful, it could be adapted
and expanded to other critical source and transit countries worldwide.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. We very much appreciate your coming here
today. Thank you, with your busy schedule and everything else
going on.
Secretary Albright. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say on
behalf of all of us, how much we appreciate the interest and
care you are taking with the State Department in terms of
people. The kinds of questions that you have asked, I welcome
so much because it shows a tremendous interest in the personnel
of the State Department. What you have done to help us deal
with, and sort through a lot of problems, by asking hard
questions has really helped us to deal with many issues. So I
am very grateful to you for everything.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. We stand in recess until next
Tuesday when we will hear from the FBI, DEA, and INS.
[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, February 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 3.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Domenici, Hutchison, Campbell, and
Hollings.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR
Drug Enforcement Administration
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. CONSTANTINE, ADMINISTRATOR
Immigration and Naturalization Service
STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER, COMMISSIONER
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. We are going to start the hearing on
Commerce, Justice, State. We are joined today by the leaders of
the law enforcement community that this committee has
jurisdiction over, people who work very hard on behalf of our
Nation to make sure that we are a safer place for our
countrymen and our families. We appreciate the time and effort
that they have put into that purpose, and we especially
appreciate the fact that in every agency that we will be
hearing from today, they have people who put their lives on the
line every day so that we are a safer society. They are on the
front lines of protecting our daily concerns.
We will go right down the line and start with the DEA and
then go to INS and then to the FBI.
OK. Mr. Constantine.
Opening statement--DEA
Mr. Constantine. Senator, I really appreciate the
opportunity to be here today and thank you and other members of
the committee on behalf of DEA for the support that we have
received for the past several years. The resources that have
been appropriated for us have been put to use as we try to make
American communities safer and to live up to our commitments to
citizens across the country.
Drug strategy
We see the drug situation continuing to be extremely
serious and affecting not only cities and urban areas but rural
and suburban areas of the entire country. The cornerstone of
DEA's strategy is really threefold. One element is what we call
an investigation of the command and control of the
international organized crime syndicates that are involved in
the delivery of the cocaine, heroin, and most of the
methamphetamine into the United States, with leadership based
outside of the United States.
We work these major investigations in cooperation with
virtually every other Federal and major State and local agency
in the country. For example, this weekend alone, information
from an alert FBI agent in the Miami area, provided to DEA and
to the Coast Guard and to people in the Bahamas in an operation
that we have called OpBat, led to the seizure of two ships
coming out of Colombia into the Caribbean with over 4 tons of
cocaine. In addition to the seizure, we can work backward to
the major figures responsible for the shipment and for the
reception of the shipment.
The second element is what we call major national
organizations, which control heroin distribution and
methamphetamine distribution, which are both increasing
problems. The third, equally important element of the strategy,
is trying to remove as much of the violence from the drug
trafficking as we can. We do this with special programs such as
our mobile enforcement team to assist smaller and mid-sized law
enforcement agencies throughout the country.
investigations of major Drug organizations
Perhaps two investigations that occurred during the last
1\1/2\ years typify the investigations that we conduct against
the leadership of major organizations. One was called
Limelight, and one was called Reciprocity. They resulted in the
arrest of over 100 people, the seizure of about 10 tons of
cocaine, almost 11,000 pounds of marijuana, and about $18
million in cash. We also were able to identify a major drug
syndicate operating out of Juarez, Mexico from the Carillo
Fuentes organization that had established tentacles throughout
the United States, from Texas throughout the west coast, and
for the first time in our experience, all the way to New York
City.
Whenever we are able to do this, we can see that we have an
impact on these organizations. When we arrest the key workers
within the United States, they have to be replaced by the
organizations in Colombia and Mexico. Over the past several
years, we have arrested over 100,000 key felons working with
other Federal agencies and State and local agencies.
Within the past 2 or 3 years, we have observed these
organizations, one out of Juarez, Mexico, another out of
Tijuana, as they have emerged as significant forces and changed
their role from transporters of drugs for the Colombian
organizations to independent operators who established their
own programs within the United States. We have seen a similar
problem in the Caribbean as groups from Colombia--like the
seizure made over this weekend--are able to take those drugs,
move them into the area of the Dominican Republic or Puerto
Rico. From there, they try to get it into the United States for
distribution at the midlevel by organizations out of the
Dominican Republic.
DEA initiatives
Our budget this year attempts to address those key issues.
The first initiative would be a continuation of DEA's program
to attack international organized crime through our liaison
offices in other countries throughout the world. This is a
followup to a number of years of such programs. We are asking
for 17 additional special agents, most of them to buttress our
support in the Caribbean as we are watching, again, the
movement of cocaine through that area. We will be enhancing the
support and the agents in Ponce, Puerto Rico; St. Thomas and
St. Croix; Barbados; Curacao; Jamaica; Haiti; the Dominican
Republic. In addition, we will be looking to open offices in
Uzbekistan; in Hanoi, Vietnam, and in Trinidad and Tobago.
Those will be a total of 17 agent positions. We also are asking
for new intelligence analyst positions in Mexico to support the
major investigations on traffickers from that country.
The second initiative is what we call attacking
international organized crime distribution systems within the
United States. Understanding that the command and control very
often comes from Colombia and Mexico, these organizations also
have major operations within the United States. These are much
more viable targets for us in the long run. We seek to augment
the resources mostly in offices on the east coast to address
those groups out of the Caribbean that are distributing heroin
and cocaine. The second emphasis is on the growing role of
methamphetamine, mostly in the Southwest, the Rocky Mountain
States, the Midwest, and some of the Southeast.
Forty-two of the 240 agent positions would be in those
domestic offices that are affected by the influx of those
violent groups coming out of the Caribbean. We would also be
looking at their involvement in heroin trafficking.
Methamphetamine strategy
The second part would be a followup for the methamphetamine
strategy. Our methamphetamine strategy has been continuing for
2 or 3 years now. This is a drug that has taken hold in many
communities on the west coast, the Southwest, the Rocky
Mountain States, and the Midwest and increasingly in the
Southeast, into Georgia, the Carolinas and into Florida. We
were asking for 100 new agent positions to follow up on the
positions we received over the last 2 or 3 years. We will be
placing them in those offices that are distinctly affected by
methamphetamine. Also, we are requesting funding to establish a
methamphetamine intelligence center, the national clandestine
laboratory data base at EPIC, for recording all of the
laboratories that we are seizing. There are a number of these
small laboratories that only account for 10 or 20 percent of
the methamphetamine, but are very destructive to the community.
The other 80 percent of the methamphetamine is coming out of
the Amezcua brothers organization out of Mexico. We target that
as an international organized crime operation.
Heroin
Our third priority area in this is heroin trafficking. I
think anybody who has read the paper has noticed that heroin,
which was once 7 percent pure, is now being sold on the streets
of the United States at 70 to 80 percent pure. We have a number
of cities that have experienced a rapid increase in overdose
deaths. Individuals who are now using heroin are in communities
that thought they had escaped the problem like middle class and
upper middle class communities. Examples that you can see are
Plano, TX, and Orlando, FL. Baltimore also has had a
significant problem, with numbers of people who are dying as a
result of this heroin, which is part of an organized
distribution scheme. It is, for the most part, heroin coming
out of Colombia, that is predominately supplying the east coast
market.
Increasingly, what we call brown heroin or black tar heroin
out of Mexico has gone from 5 percent of our seizures to 20
percent of our seizures in just a 1-year period of time. We
have seen a relationship developing between the Colombian
organizations and organizations in Mexico, sharing
sophisticated chemists to improve the quality of the heroin out
of Mexico.
I thought Plano, TX, was a classic example of how horrible
the results can be when drugs become commonly used in a
community, and the purity level and the international organized
crime distribution system all come together. It is a city of
considerable material benefits. It is a sought-after school
system for people who move to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The
police chief, Bruce Glascock, is both a personal and
professional friend of mine, one of the outstanding police
leaders in the country and a vice president in the
International Organization of Chiefs of Police.
In a relatively short period of time, 14 young people in
Plano, TX--many of them with great potential in life--were
found dead or taken to hospitals as a result of overdose of
heroin. An even more significant number were just dropped off
in the parking lots of hospitals without any identification or
without any explanation of the circumstances. Fortunately they
did not die and were able to survive the events.
We loaned out a number of DEA people to work with a special
task force that was moving through the Plano area. We had our
demand reduction experts meet with over 2,000 parents in
special meetings in Plano, TX, for prevention programs. We
eventually were able to identify the midlevel traffickers, who
were people who lived in Texas. Their source was from Guerrero
in Mexico. They knew when they were selling this heroin that it
was high-level purity, and it was dangerous. It is my
understanding that the local prosecutors are looking at it for
possibly homicide statute implementation.
Methamphetamine
Obviously, as we look at the methamphetamine, which as I
have talked about involves virtually every State. We have been
able to identify a major organization out of Dallas that
controlled the methamphetamine trafficking out of California.
It was a group associated and directed by the Amezcua brothers
organization out of Mexico, who were responsible for this
manufacture. Often, a laboratory is, unfortunately, very
unsafe; sometimes located close to schools; once in an
equestrian center where people were bringing their children for
riding lessons, unknowing that there was this major laboratory
conducted right back in the stables.
We were, as a result of a joint investigation with the FBI
and Customs, able to make an arrest of most of the major
principals since they were in the United States, all the way
down into Georgia and into Florida. We are spending, as you
know, a substantial amount of our available funding for
training of local law enforcement. In 1996, we had trained 200
law enforcement officers in how to execute search warrants and
conduct themselves at these very volatile chemical situation
laboratories. Last year, we trained 900. We will train an
additional 2,000 over the next 2 years, and we have produced a
videotape for virtually every police officer in the country
providing procedures for their own safety and evidence
preservation.
We also will be, as a result of our request in this budget,
if successful, able to forward-base throughout the United
States trucks and a great deal of lab equipment which are
needed for the entry into these facilities. All of that is part
of our budget proposal.
prepared statement
I know your time is limited. That is a summation of our
budget request this year.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, and I will get into questions in
a second.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Constantine
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the Drug
Enforcement Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget request. Before I
provide you with details of this request, I first want to take the
opportunity to express deep appreciation on behalf of the men and women
of the Drug Enforcement Administration for the outstanding support you
have provided to us over the past several years. The resources you have
appropriated for DEA help us make American communities safer, and allow
us to live up to our commitments to citizens across the nation who look
to the government to rid their neighborhoods of drug trafficking and
drug-related violence. DEA is working both domestically and
internationally to target and arrest the most significant drug
traffickers operating today, and we have had a number of successes
within the past year, which I will discuss in some detail later in my
statement.
The drug situation in our nation continues to be an extremely
serious problem, one which affects not only our major cities, but also
the suburban and rural areas of our country. Despite dramatic
reductions in violent crime rates in recent years, the problems of drug
trafficking and abuse continue to diminish the quality of life for many
of our citizens. The primary role for DEA as a law enforcement agency
is to identify, apprehend, and bring to justice those individuals and
organizations who are responsible for drug trafficking. The most
important targets are the major organized crime syndicates based in
Colombia and Mexico.
No American citizen, whether living in Topeka, Kansas or in our
nation's capital, is beyond the reach of these organized crime
syndicates. Drug lords in Colombia and Mexico have created an
infrastructure that enables them to manage drug-trafficking on an
international scale. With a network of surrogates in the United States,
international drug trafficking organizations have infiltrated and,
subsequently decimated, far too many communities across the globe. They
have become an occupying force in the war on drugs: sparking violent
turf wars between rival drug lords, corrupting nascent political
institutions in Latin and South America, and extending the plague of
drug abuse and drug-related crime to communities across the United
States.
Although based abroad, organized crime syndicates have a direct and
deleterious impact on Americans across the country. Drug trafficking
unleashes a tidal wave of drug-related crime which overwhelms our
judicial system and floods our prisons. Tens of thousands of homicides,
assaults, and burglaries are committed each year by criminals as a
direct result of drug abuse or drug gangs. The link between crime and
drugs is clear: studies show that drug users are more frequently
involved in crime and are more likely to have criminal records than
non-users. Data collected in 1995 from male arrestees in 23 cities
shows that the percentage testing positive for any drug ranged from 51
percent to 83 percent. Despite a five year decline in national violent
crime rates, law enforcement officials made a record 1.5 million
arrests for drug violations in 1996. As a consequence, organized crime
syndicates can augment their organizations with an unprecedented pool
criminals in the United States, who are completely ingrained in the
drug culture. These criminals serve as a ready supply for the drug
syndicates surrogate army in the U.S. The size of this surrogate army,
and their violent commitment to maintaining the profitability of their
boss' drug trafficking organization, pose a serious threat to law
enforcement agencies across the country.
The costs of drug-related crime come not just from expenditures
associated with defending our citizens from drug trafficking and
related violence, but also with treating the victims of organized
crime. Drug trafficking and abuse have generated an alarming increase
in the number of drug-related emergency room episodes in recent years.
DRUG-RELATED EMERGENCY ROOM MENTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All drugs..................................... 635,480 860,260
Cocaine....................................... 80,355 144,180
Heroin........................................ 33,884 70,463
Methamphetamine............................... 5,236 10,787
Marijuana..................................... 15,706 50,037
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug-related crime and abuse exact a heavy toll on our society.
Lost work productivity, juvenile delinquency, violent crime, automobile
accidents, and a myriad of other social ills linked to illegal drug
abuse cost our society an estimated $67 billion last year,
approximately $1,000 for each family of four in the United States.
The drug trafficking operations of organized crime syndicates not
only generate violent crime in our communities and burden the taxpayer
with the costs, but they also carry the plague of drug abuse to the
very core of American society, the family. The drugs consumed by a
father of three in Manchester, New Hampshire can be traced from his
local dealer, to a middleman from the Dominican Republic operating in
New York City, to a drug lord safely ensconced in his lavish villa in
Colombia. While the father pays cash for the drugs, his wife and
children pay the price for his drug addiction. The statistics are
overwhelming:
--One-quarter to one-half of all incidents of domestic violence are
drug-related.
--A survey of state child welfare agencies found substance abuse to
be one of the key problems exhibited by 81 percent of the
families reported for child maltreatment.
--In 1996, 3.2 percent of pregnant women--nearly 80,000 mothers--were
current drug users.
The cost to these children and to society as a whole does not stop
at birth. Saving these children, and their peers who succumb to drug
abuse later in their young lives, will cost society nearly a million
dollars per child.
It is impossible to draw a line of demarcation between domestic
drug abuse problems and international drug trafficking. The $20 an
American addict spends each day for crack cocaine is ultimately
funneled, by an organized crime syndicate, back to a drug lord, in
Colombia or Mexico. Likewise, it is impossible to distinguish between
domestic and international drug trafficking. Both are dominated by the
same organized crime syndicates which exist as a seamless continuum.
Unlike governments and law enforcement, they do not recognize or
respect international borders. Access to the most sophisticated
technologies, a willingness to resort to violence and bribery and a
well-organized infrastructure enables them to transcend such barriers.
Drug lords in Colombia and Mexico have established enterprises made up
of networks of compartmentalized cells capable of extending drug
trafficking operations into cities large and small within the United
States.
The powerful drug syndicate leaders from Colombia and Mexico are
merely modern day versions of the mobsters that law enforcement in the
United States has fought during this entire century, except that modern
organized crime syndicates are exponentially more wealthy, powerful,
and violent than their predecessors. Organized crime has always been
founded on these same key principles, whether it was Al Capone in the
1920's, the La Cosa Nostra families in New York in the 1950's and
1960's, or today's Colombian and Mexican syndicates. Successful
organized crime syndicates utilize hierarchical control, secret
communications, corruption and violence to create an infrastructure
that both shields them from law enforcement and facilitates their
criminal activity.
Over time, law enforcement in the United States has been able to
effectively counter domestic organized crime by attacking the
communications systems of the major crime syndicates. In the past,
domestic organized crime was controlled by a few leaders who lived in
the United States and were within reach of the U.S. criminal justice
system. Today's syndicate leaders pose a more serious threat, operating
from sanctuaries in Colombia and Mexico. They are outside the reach of
U.S. law enforcement and, consequently, able to command their cells
operating in the United States freely and effectively.
The cornerstone of DEA's national investigative strategy,
therefore, is to focus on attacking the command and control functions
of the organized criminal syndicates that control virtually all of the
cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine trafficking in the United States
today. In addition to building cases against the leaders of
international drug trafficking syndicates and their surrogates, DEA has
a responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States from the
violence that is attendant to the drug trade.
One of our major objectives is to lend support to those cities and
towns in the United States which lack the resources to address these
sophisticated and powerful drug trafficking groups. Many of the major
cities in our country have recently reported dramatic reductions in
violent crime. In New York City, an aggressive, zero tolerance campaign
against crime has led to a sharp decrease in violent crime rates in a
city once viewed as one of the most dangerous cities in the United
States. Unfortunately, at the same time, violent crime rates have
increased substantially in many smaller cities across our country.
Later in this testimony I will detail for you some of DEA's efforts to
address these issues with our Mobile Enforcement Teams and our REDRUM
programs.
Operations such as Limelight and Reciprocity, which target major
Mexican drug trafficking groups operating in the United States, have a
lasting effect on organized crime. The arrest of what seems to be a
never ending stream of surrogates sent by syndicate leaders to the
United States not only causes a steady degradation of the syndicates'
ability to recruit individuals who can effectively control enormous
drug distribution networks in the U.S., but, when fully exploited, also
enables law enforcement to build investigations to the syndicates'
highest levels. Our focus on the Cali organization's command and
control functions in the U.S. enabled us to build formidable cases
against the Cali leaders, which allowed our Colombian counterparts to
accomplish the almost unimaginable--the arrest and incarceration of the
entire infrastructure of the most powerful crime group in history.
There have been many successes in our efforts against organized
drug syndicates both here in the United States and abroad. DEA and our
state and local task force partners have made more than 100,000 felony
arrests for federal drug violations in the U.S. in the last four years.
Many of those arrested were violent traffickers, who brought mayhem to
the cities and towns where they ran their businesses. Their
incarceration is in some part responsible for the decrease in crime in
our major cities. A similarly increased focus of federal resources will
have equal or even more demonstrable results in smaller cities.
Results against sophisticated, powerful crime leaders and their
organizations come are hard fought. We are pitted against a foe that
has resources that rival our own. Nonetheless, recent history
demonstrates that organized crime syndicates can be defeated. The Cali
syndicate virtually disintegrated under intense investigative pressure.
Amado Carrillo-Fuentes died trying to change his appearance through
plastic surgery because of the scrutiny he was receiving from U.S. and
Mexican law enforcement agencies. Persistent pressure all along the
drug trade spectrum, in concert with complete and unfettered
cooperation from our foreign counterparts, will result in successes
commensurate with the resources invested. In short, effective drug law
enforcement, combined with an appropriate focus on demand reduction,
and the education of our youth will work and will result in far less
crime in our communities and decreased drug use by our children.
Mexico's Growing Role in the Cocaine Trade
Trafficking groups from Mexico are a significant force in
international organized crime. These organizations are no longer simply
middlemen in the cocaine transportation business. With the disruption
of the Cali syndicate, groups such as the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
organization, the Arellano-Felix organization, the Amezcua-Contreras
brothers, and the Caro-Quintero group have consolidated their power and
now dominate drug trafficking along the U.S./Mexico border and in many
U.S. cities.
Mexican traffickers now control the cocaine trade west of the
Mississippi River and are making significant inroads into the cocaine
market in some eastern cities, including New York; they dominate the
methamphetamine trade in California, along the Southwest Border, and in
states such as Georgia and Iowa. Additionally, heroin from Mexico now
accounts for one-fifth of the heroin seized within the United States,
up from only five percent last year.
I have, on several occasions, provided the Congress with the names
of those drug traffickers in Mexico who are directly responsible for a
large share of the drugs and related violence that plague our cities
and towns. I believe it is critical that we keep their names on the
front pages so that there is no doubt about who supplies the drugs that
addict and kill our children or our resolve to bring these individuals
to justice.
Amado Carrillo-Fuentes Organization
Until July 4, 1997, when Amado Carrillo-Fuentes died in Mexico City
after undergoing plastic surgery, he was considered the most powerful
trafficker in Mexico. The Carrillo-Fuentes organization (ACFO), based
in Juarez, is involved in the trafficking of cocaine, heroin, and
marijuana. The ACFO's regional bases are in Guadalajara, Hermosillo,
and Torreon, where the organization stores drugs for eventual shipment
into the United States. After the death of Carrillo-Fuentes, gang
warfare within Mexico and in U.S. border towns escalated, consuming
individuals involved in the drug trade and innocents alike. As of this
date, the ACFO continues to function effectively.
Caro-Quintero Organization
The focus of Miguel Caro Quintero's organization is on trafficking
cocaine and marijuana. Miguel, with his two brothers Jorge and Genaro,
runs the organization. They specialize in the cultivation, production,
and distribution of marijuana, a major cash crop for many of the
trafficking organizations from Mexico. This organization is believed to
own many ranches in the Northern Border State of Sonora, from which
drug smuggling operations into the United States are staged. In
addition, like many of the other trafficking organizations in Mexico,
they are also involved in the trafficking of cocaine and
methamphetamine.
Amezcua-Contreras Brothers Organization
The Amezcua-Contreras organization is based in Guadalajara, Mexico
and is headed by Jesus Amezcua, who is assisted by his brothers, Adan
and Luis. They currently are the world's largest smuggler of ephedrine
and clandestine producer of methamphetamine. The Amezcua organization
obtains large quantities of the precursor ephedrine, through contacts
in Thailand and India, which they then supply to methamphetamine labs
in Mexico and in the United States.
Joaquin Guzman-Loera Organization
Although he is presently incarcerated in Mexico, Guzman-Loera is
still considered a major threat by law enforcement in both the United
States and Mexico. His brother, Arturo, has assumed the leadership role
and the organization remains active in Mexico, along the Southwest
border, in the Western and Midwestern regions of the U.S., as well as
in Central America. The group transports cocaine from Colombia into
Mexico and the United States for the remnants of the Cali and Medellin
Cartels. The organization is also involved in the smuggling, storage,
and distribution of Colombian cocaine, Mexican marijuana, and Mexican
and Southeast Asian heroin.
The Arellano-Felix Brothers Organization
Benjamin Arellano-Felix is the head of this trafficking
organization that operates in Tijuana, Baja California, and parts of
the States of Sinaloa, Sonora, Jalisco, and most recently, Tamaulipas.
Benjamin coordinates the activities of the organization through his
brothers: Ramon, Javier, and Francisco. The Arrellano-Felix
organization, the most violent of the Mexican trafficking organizations
and reportedly was involved in the murder of Cardinal Posadas-Ocampo at
the Guadalajara Airport in 1993. The United States recently filed for a
provisional arrest warrant and placed Ramon Arellano-Felix on the FBI's
``Most Wanted'' list. The Mexican Government has offered a $1 million
reward for information leading to the arrest of the Arellano-Felix
brothers.
DEA Organized Crime Enforcement Strategy.--This strategy is
demonstrated in Operation Reciprocity and Limelight, cases which
clearly prove the interrelation between high level traffickers
headquartered in Mexico and their organizations in many U.S. cities.
The Amado Carrillo-Fuentes organization was deeply involved in a
sophisticated drug operation that stretched from Mexico to New York,
Chicago, Grand Rapids, Tucson, and other parts of the U.S. At one
point, several independent and seemingly unrelated investigations were
being conducted in Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
Eventually these separate cases were combined under the umbrella
investigations known as Reciprocity and Limelight.
As is the case in most high-level international investigations that
ultimately lead to the leadership of international organized crime
rings, these investigations began with a seemingly routine event in the
U.S. In late 1996, two troopers from the Texas Department of Public
Safety stopped a van with New York plates on Interstate 30. They became
suspicious when they learned that one man was from New York while the
other was from El Paso, and they were not well acquainted. Neither man
owned the van and their stories conflicted regarding where they were
going and where they had been. The troopers found 99 bundles hidden in
the vehicle's walls. They soon realized that the packages contained
money, not cocaine.
It took three hours to count the $1.3 million they had found. As
the officers continued their search, they discovered another $700,000,
bringing the total to more than $2 million. On December 3, 1996, after
receiving an anonymous call, the Tucson Police Department and drug task
force officers raided a warehouse containing 5.3 tons of cocaine. On
December 13, 1996, the same Texas troopers stopped a northbound tractor
trailer and seized 2,700 pounds of marijuana. Follow-up investigation
connected this interdiction to their previous seizure of money, to the
cocaine warehouse in Tucson, and to ongoing investigations in Texas,
Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
All of these investigations provided our Special Agents and federal
prosecutors with the key to investigating the operations of the Amado
Carrillo-Fuentes organization. This powerful Mexican syndicate was
apparently using U.S. trucks and employees to transport huge amounts of
cocaine to various U.S. destinations. The resulting investigation,
Operation Reciprocity, secured 40 arrests, the seizure of $11 million
in cash, 7.4 tons of cocaine and 2,700 pounds of marijuana. A parallel
investigation, Operation Limelight, resulted in the seizure of more
than 4,000 kilos of cocaine, almost 11,000 pounds of marijuana, over $7
million in cash, and 48 arrests. Evidence gathered in this
investigation revealed that one driver alone had transported over 30
tons of cocaine into the United States and had returned over $100
million in drug profits to Carrillo-Fuentes in Juarez, Mexico.
Mexican transportation groups have clearly added the East Coast to
their sphere of influence and now deliver cocaine directly to New York
City and other East coast markets. This role was once reserved for
traffickers from Colombia and the Dominican Republic. These two
operations, like their successful predecessors, Zorro I and Zorro II,
show that law enforcement can strike major blows against foreign drug
syndicates by targeting their command and control functions.
Another example of DEA success against the domestic operations of
the major Mexican trafficking groups was the recent indictment, by a
federal grand jury in San Diego, of 10 members of the Logan Heights
Gang on charges of serving as paid killers for the Arellano-Felix
organization. The hallmark of many of the Mexican trafficking groups,
most notably the Arellano-Felix organization, is their use of violence
as a means of intimidation against potential witnesses and
organizational rivals in both Mexico and the U.S. The indictment
charges the members of this gang with acting as body guards and
participating in missions to eliminate adversaries of the Arellano-
Felix organization. This indictment proved to be an important step in
our Southwest Border efforts against the Arellano-Felix group and was
instrumental in ridding this San Diego neighborhood of some of its most
violent offenders.
Through our domestic drug investigations and with the assistance of
our country office in Mexico, DEA has been able to build cases that
have led to the indictment of the leaders of every major drug
trafficking organization in Mexico. More than one-half of the priority
requests for provisional arrest for extradition filed by the Department
of Justice are for major drug traffickers. None of the leaders of the
major drug syndicates were arrested in 1997.
The Increasing Significance of the Caribbean.--While it is true
that the majority of cocaine entering the United States comes across
the U.S.-Mexican border, traffickers are reactivating their trafficking
routes in the Caribbean. Colombian trafficking organizations dominate
drug trafficking in the Caribbean. DEA has identified four major
organizations based on the northern coast of Colombia that have
deployed command and control cells in the Caribbean Basin to funnel
tons of cocaine to the U.S. each year. Colombian managers, who have
been dispatched to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, operate
these command and control centers and are responsible for overseeing
drug trafficking in the region. These groups are also directing
networks of transporters that oversee the importation, storage,
exportation, and wholesale distribution of cocaine destined for the
continental U.S.
Many Colombian groups, particularly those who have risen to power
since the Cali syndicate's fall, have returned to the traditional
Caribbean routes to move their product to market. As these Colombian
groups re-establish their ties with their Caribbean confederates,
increasingly larger shipments transit the Caribbean. Seizures of 500 to
2,000 kilos of cocaine are now common in and around Puerto Rico and the
Dominican Republic.
The incarceration and death of the leaders of the Cali drug
syndicate were the antecedents for the most significant change in the
wholesale U.S. cocaine trade in the last two decades. This change has
become particularly evident over the last 12 months. Just a few years
ago, Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela and his powerful Cali syndicate
controlled as much as 80 percent of the cocaine distributed in the U.S.
He completely controlled every phase of the drug continuum, from
manufacturing to distribution in cities and towns throughout the United
States as varied as Chicago, Illinois and Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
In the last year, however, criminals from the Dominican Republic
have emerged as the dominant force in the wholesale cocaine and heroin
trade on the East Coast of the U.S. Battered by the aggressive
application of our organized crime enforcement strategy and the arrests
of the syndicates' leadership in Colombia, many new Colombian drug
traffickers have sought to pull back from the Cali syndicate's
traditional modus operandi of ruling a monolithic organization and
exercising complete control of the drug continuum: from cultivation and
production, to the wholesale marketing of both heroin and cocaine.
Instead, they have chosen to franchise a significant portion of their
wholesale heroin and cocaine operations. The Dominican trafficking
groups, already firmly entrenched as low-level cocaine and heroin
wholesalers in the larger Northeastern cities, were uniquely situated
to assume a far more significant role in this multi-billion-dollar
business.
Trust, the essential ingredient in forging a successful business
relationship in the drug underworld, had already been established
between Dominican and Colombian traffickers through relationships
formed during hundreds of smuggling ventures in the Caribbean and
through their long established relationships in New York, Newark, and
Boston. From Boston, Massachusetts to Charlotte, North Carolina, well-
organized Dominican trafficking groups are, for the first time,
controlling and directing the sale of multi-hundred kilo shipments of
cocaine and multi-kilogram quantities of heroin. Their influence is now
spreading beyond the big city landscape into the smaller cities and
towns along the East Coast.
New England is now faced with numerous gangs from the Dominican
Republic selling multiple kilogram amounts of cocaine and smaller
amounts of heroin. For example, DEA and the Hartford Connecticut Police
Department recently arrested 40 members of a Dominican trafficking
group responsible for the sale of thousands of bags of heroin brought
into Hartford from New York City. In New Haven, Connecticut, one
Dominican trafficking group was responsible for about 90 percent of all
the heroin being sold in the city. They have also participated in a
variety of other crimes ranging from robbery to muggings, creating
their own crime wave in the process.
This sea-change in the wholesale heroin and cocaine markets is not
unique to New York and New England. The Philadelphia area also is
saturated with Dominican traffickers looking to claim a larger portion
of these markets, and the Washington-Baltimore area routinely receives
heroin shipments from New York-based Dominican groups. The Dominican's
reach even extends into southern states. In July 1997, a group of
Dominican traffickers were arrested in Charlotte, North Carolina after
an investigation revealed they were transporting heroin from New York
City to supply guests at private rave parties in the Charlotte area.
At the same time, the increase in the flow of cocaine and heroin en
route to the United States through the Caribbean has brought a new wave
of drug abuse and attendant violence to the Caribbean. Approximately 70
percent of all documented homicides in Puerto Rico are now drug-
related. As a result, the number of drug homicides has increased
dramatically in the last decade. In 1984, homicides in Puerto Rico
numbered 483; by 1994, this figure had more than doubled. Today, while
the murder rate in Puerto Rico has stabilized, with 864 homicides in
1995 and 868 in 1996, it remains nevertheless, nearly twice as high as
figures obtained prior to the invasion of major drug trafficking
organizations.
In order to address the rapid growth of drug trafficking and
violence in the Caribbean region, in fiscal year 1998, Congress
provided DEA with a total of 60 Special Agents and $34.2 million to
build upon our successful Southwest Border Strategy and expand our
operations into the Caribbean Corridor. In fiscal year 1999, we are
requesting and additional 42 Special Agents and $5.6 million to enhance
our domestic offices in major cities along the East Coast which are
being detrimentally affected by the influx of violent trafficking
groups based in the Caribbean. With the addition of these resources,
DEA will be in a position to more fully meet the challenge of the
Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking groups operating along our
Southern frontier.
Heroin from Colombia and Mexico.--The relatively recent influx of
high quality, cheap heroin from Colombia and Mexico is a significant
law enforcement and public health issue. During the past several years,
South American heroin has accounted for the majority of DEA heroin
seizures. In 1994, 32 percent of the heroin samples tested were of
South American origin; in 1995, the total was 62 percent. In 1996,
South American heroin continued to dominate the market, representing 52
percent of heroin seizures in the United States.
Cheap, high quality heroin--average purity of South American heroin
in 1996 was 72.2 percent--continues to dominate East Coast markets
including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. The
availability of South American heroin is not, however, limited to the
Northeast; Orlando, Florida, for example, has been especially hard-hit
by the drug. In 1995 and 1996, 48 individuals in this city died of
heroin overdoses.
The most dramatic drug related statistical increase in 1996 was in
the amount of Mexican-produced heroin seized in the United States.
Mexican heroin accounted for 20 percent of all heroin seized in the
U.S., a fourfold increase from 1995. Combined, Colombian and Mexican
heroin accounted for almost three-quarters of all the heroin seized in
the U.S. during 1996. The emergence of Mexico in 1996 as the second
most common source of heroin is consistent with the expansion of the
cocaine and methamphetamine distribution networks of the major Mexican
organized crime syndicates. The city of Plano, Texas has suffered an
epidemic of heroin abuse, an epidemic whose origins can be traced to
the distribution of extremely pure Mexican heroin in the community.
After fourteen Plano teenagers and young adults died using uncut
Mexican heroin, DEA worked with the Plano Police Department to
establish an ad hoc task force to identify the suppliers of this
Mexican black tar heroin. In November 1997, a major heroin distributor
from Mexico and his four associates were arrested by the task force.
These drug traffickers did not ``cut'' their product to reduce its
purity. As a result, the heroin supplied by this organization was
between 50 percent and 76 percent pure and, consequently, killed
several teens experimenting with the drug for the first time.
Mexican heroin has been available in the U.S. for many years, but
the situation in Plano clearly illustrates the seriousness of the
growing Mexican heroin problem. International organized crime groups
from Mexico are directly supplying American communities with high
purity heroin. In addition, the average size of Mexican heroin seizures
has increased significantly, with some reflecting in the multi-kilogram
range. These increases in seizure size reflect an increased
availability of the product. These developments, increased purity and
availability, will further spread the scourge which has already hit
Plano to other communities, large and small, across the country.
While heroin produced in Mexico dominates the marketplace in the
western U.S., heroin produced and controlled by Colombian groups is
marketed aggressively throughout the Northeast, and more recently, the
Midwest. These two areas of the country easily contain the largest
portion of the heroin addicted population in the U.S. New York City,
with roughly half of the country's heroin addict population, continues
to be the largest heroin market in the United States. As a result,
traffickers have made the city the most significant heroin importation
and distribution center in the country.
In June 1997, DEA was able to strike a major blow against the New
York City heroin operations of the Gamboa organization, a Colombian
crime syndicate responsible for significant heroin and cocaine
trafficking in the United States. The Gamboa syndicate was using South
American smugglers to import eight kilos of heroin per month for its
drug cell operating in New York City. In August 1997, a DEA
investigation led to the arrest of Milton Gutierrez, the head of the
New York City cell, and nine members of his organization and the
seizure of 1.8 kilos of heroin and $65,000 in assets were also seized.
Cases like this clearly illustrate increased heroin use in the
United States. Coupled with the drug's low cost and deadly levels of
purity, this is clearly cause for concern. Additional resources
provided to DEA in fiscal year 1999 will allow us to continue to build
upon our five-year heroin enforcement strategy, working to halt the
continuing spread of this dangerous drug across the United States.
The Spread of the Domestic Methamphetamine Market.--Known on the
street by names like ``crank'' and ``speed,'' methamphetamine is a
dangerous stimulant which possesses the same addictive qualities
similar to those of crack cocaine. According to statistics from the
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), the U.S. experienced a 209 percent
increase in the number of methamphetamine-related emergency room
episodes between 1990 and 1995. Following a brief drop during the first
half of fiscal year 1996, total methamphetamine episodes skyrocketed by
71 percent during the second half of the year.
Today, DEA is taking part in more methamphetamine-related arrests
and is seizing more clandestine laboratories per year than ever before
in our 25-year history. Since fiscal year 1993, DEA arrests in
methamphetamine-related investigations have consistently risen.
Methamphetamine arrests increased by 45 percent in one year, rising
from 3,920 in fiscal year 1996 to 5,780 arrests in fiscal year 1997.
During fiscal year 1997, DEA was involved in the seizure of more
methamphetamine laboratories (1,272) than in the three previous fiscal
years combined (combined total equals 1,256).
The illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine can occur anywhere an
operator can set up laboratory equipment to synthesize the product
(e.g., motel rooms, apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a
neighbor's house, etc.). The caustic, flammable, and explosive
chemicals required by ``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the
lives of not only criminals, but innocent neighbors as well. The
potential environmental damage caused by one clandestine laboratory can
place an entire community at risk.
Methamphetamine trafficking and production in the U.S. is currently
divided between the thousands of small, independent organizations, who
run ``mom-and-pop'' labs and the major Mexican syndicates networks who
produce methamphetamine in super labs in Mexico and California. Both
groups are producing more methamphetamine than ever before. However, it
is the emergence of the Mexican syndicates and their growing domination
of methamphetamine production and distribution that has redefined the
methamphetamine problem in the U.S.
The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the methamphetamine market can
largely be attributed to two factors. First, Mexican organized crime
has established access to enormous quantities of the precursor
ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the international market.
Second, these criminal groups regularly produce unprecedented
quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and Californian
super labs. As previously indicated, the Amezcua-Contreras Brothers,
operating out of Guadalajara, are the world's largest smugglers of
ephedrine and clandestine producers of methamphetamine. The Amezcua
Organization obtains large quantities of precursor ephedrine through
contacts in Thailand and India, which they then use to make
methamphetamine for subsequent distribution to Mexican trafficking
groups operating in major U.S. population centers.
Operation META.--For the last several years, the influence of
Mexican organizations trafficking methamphetamine in the United States
has increased dramatically. Operation META demonstrated just how
extensive their involvement in the methamphetamine trade is. This
multi-agency wiretap investigation targeted traffickers associated with
the Amezcua brothers' methamphetamine trafficking organization, a
syndicate which supplied its U.S. cells with methamphetamine, precursor
chemicals, and cocaine.
Amezcua cells manufactured methamphetamine in Los Angeles. In fact,
during the META raids, operating methamphetamine labs were discovered
near a day-care center and in an equestrian center where riding lessons
were being conducted. This is typical of the disregard organized crime
syndicates have for the safety and well-being of the American public.
The labs discovered were capable of producing more than 300 pounds of
methamphetamine.
Drug traffickers along the border, such as those associated with
the Amezcua Organization, have a major impact on the drug trafficking
and violent crime situation throughout the United States. The Southwest
Border Strategy brings together many federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices in a coordinated effort
to target major drug traffickers operating along the southwest border
of the United States. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted
as part of this strategy, resulted in more than 100 key arrests.
Due to methamphetamine's increasing popularity in the West and its
rapid spread eastward, an increasing number of independent trafficking
and production networks are also being established. They feed the
habits of customers typically found outside the Mexican syndicates'
predominant areas of influence. These independent networks, which have
proliferated in the Midwest, and more recently on the East Coast, are
selling to users in rural areas, middle class suburbs, and on college
campuses. Surging demand and increased profit margins are driving
increased drug production, and luring more traffickers and chemists
into the methamphetamine trade. Often, a minimal investment of $500 can
yield profits as high as $4,000 to $18,000.
Fifty percent of the clandestine labs seized by DEA in fiscal year
1997 were located in the Midwest. States like Missouri, which four
years ago experienced negligible clandestine laboratory activity, have
become full-fledged production centers. Just last month, DEA, in
cooperation with state and local law enforcement, seized its first
major clandestine laboratory in the city of St. Louis.
States as far east as Georgia, Kentucky, and New York are also
beginning to see the effects of growing methamphetamine production and
distribution. In August of 1997, DEA, in cooperation with the FBI and
the Northern Kentucky Drug Strike Force, arrested Mexican national
Enrique Ochoa-Montanez and seized approximately 35 pounds of
methamphetamine and $14,000 in cash from a hotel in northern Kentucky.
In December 1997, DEA's Atlanta Field Division was involved in the
seizure of 10 pounds of methamphetamine being shipped via Federal
Express from California, Texas and Mexico. The methamphetamine seized
was linked to the drug trafficking operations of the Amezcua-Contreras
Organization. Just last month, DEA Agents, again in cooperation with
state and local law enforcement, arrested four people and seized 25
pounds of methamphetamine in Marietta, Georgia. This seizure--half a
million dollars worth of methamphetamine--had been manufactured in
Mexico and was intended for distribution in the Atlanta area.
Marijuana Eradication.--DEA is ardently striving to halt the
continuing spread of marijuana trafficking and distribution across the
United States. Marijuana is the most widely used and readily available
drug in the United States and the only drug of abuse grown within our
borders. Today, increasing numbers of our vulnerable, school age
children have been misled to believe that use of marijuana is not
harmful and that it should be used for medicinal purposes. In most
instances, the call for the use of marijuana as a form of medical
treatment is only a thin disguise, used by those who advocate the
legalization of marijuana and other drugs. Although, in many circles,
marijuana use continued to be viewed benignly, research suggests that
the drug is harmful and is a gateway to the use of cocaine, heroin, and
other drugs.
In 1997, DEA continued to improve upon the effectiveness of its
marijuana eradication efforts across the country, spending $13.6
million to support 88 state and local agencies that participated in our
Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program (DCE/SP). Funding
increases in 1997 allowed these state and local agencies to enhance
their already aggressive eradication enforcement activities and
resulted in the eradication of 3,827,133 cultivated outdoor plants,
221,396 indoor plants, and 136,990 pounds of processed bulk marijuana.
In addition, this program secured 17,070 arrests, and the seizure of
4,713 weapons, and $39,562,165 in seized assets.
Through these efforts, we have made significant headway in curbing
the availability of domestically grown marijuana. Operational plans
submitted by the 88 state and local law enforcement agencies
participating in the DCE/SP indicate that the aggressive eradication
efforts undertaken by the states have caused the outdoor cultivators to
move their operations indoors, abandoning their larger outdoor plots
for the safety/concealment of smaller, limited indoor cultivating
areas. This has made marijuana cultivation harder to detect.
Mobile Enforcement Teams.--Addressing the Issue of Violent Crime:
DEA's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program was initiated in 1995 in
response to the growing problem of drug-related violent crime that
plagues neighborhoods and communities throughout our nation. The MET
program represents the most ambitious domestic enforcement program that
we have ever undertaken to attack drug-related violence in America.
Through January 1998, our MET program was responsible for the
completion of 122 deployments which resulted in 5,428 arrests and the
seizure of 871 pounds of cocaine, 269 pounds of methamphetamine, 36
pounds of heroin, 726 pounds of marijuana, and $7.9 million in assets.
At the request of a police chief, sheriff, or district attorney, a
MET (comprised of eight to twelve DEA Special Agents) works in concert
with local police to dislodge violent drug offenders from the
community. It is DEA's goal to ensure that the state and local
officials requesting the MET deployment feel completely comfortable in
inviting the agency into their community. DEA does not seek credit for
its MET deployments, but instead encourages state and local officials
to handle all press relations and media events surrounding the
deployments as well as to take full credit for the accomplishments of
the MET.
DEA's MET's are primarily investigative in nature. Their mission is
to dismantle drug organizations by securing the conviction and
incarceration of those individuals dealing drugs and engaging in
violence within a community. Evidence developed in the narcotics
investigations may also be used to prosecute the same individuals for
related crimes including murder, assault and/or other acts of violence.
It is important to recognize that the MET Program was designed to
target violent drug trafficking organizations (as identified by the
requesting agency) which contribute significantly to increases in the
level of violence in a particular community. The two factors which
provide the highest measure of effectiveness by a MET deployment
include: (a) whether the MET successfully dismantled the targeted
organization identified in the initial assessment, and (b) whether the
requesting agency and the community are pleased with the enforcement
effort and/or assistance provided by the MET.
The positive or negative outcome of these two primary factors are
clearly outlined in the post-deployment reviews which are required six
months after the completion of each MET deployment. These two factors,
along with arrest and seizure statistics which document the number of
violent drug traffickers removed from the streets, and pre and post-
deployment area crime statistics, provide the most accurate measurement
of the effectiveness of a MET deployment that can be obtained.
Over time, our MET deployments have resulted in significant
decreases in crime rates in targeted communities across the country.
For example, following our MET deployment to El Cajon, California and
subsequent arrest of members of the ``Orphans'' street gang, there was
a 66 percent reduction in overall reported area crime and an 87 percent
reduction in reported violent crime. Following our MET deployment to
Pinal County, Arizona and the dismantlement of the area's ``Bloods''
and ``Crips'' street gangs, calls for police service in the targeted
areas dropped 60 percent and overall crime dropped a remarkable 43
percent in the six months following the deployment.
Other recent examples of successful MET deployments include:
Louisville, Kentucky (July 1997-September 1997)
This MET deployment was requested in response to a significant
increase in narcotics trafficking and related violence occurring in the
City of Louisville and surrounding communities, spurred by the
operations of a large scale cocaine trafficking organization operating
in the region. In April 1996, the violence associated with the
operations of this trafficking group culminated with the murder of a
DEA cooperating source. Immediately following the completion of DEA's
MET deployment to Louisville, news reports indicated a nine to ten
percent drop in area crime rates compared to the same period in 1996.
In the particular section of the city where the MET concentrated its
efforts, cocaine seizures increased by 40 percent, marijuana seizures
increased by 60 percent and felony crimes were reported to have
decreased by 21 percent.
National City, California (October 1996-September 1997)
This MET deployment was requested to assist National City in its
efforts to address increasing violent criminal activity associated with
members of the Old Town National City Gang (OTNC). The primary drugs
distributed in the National City area include methamphetamine and
heroin. At the conclusion of the deployment, 41 individuals were
arrested, including 14 OTNC targeted members and associates. The
deployment effectively dismantled the notorious OTNC gang and revealed
a connection between the OTNC and Mexican trafficking organizations. As
a result of the overwhelming success of this deployment, the Mayor of
National City, California officially proclaimed October 7, 1997, as
``DEA MET Day.''
Terrell, Texas (May 1997-November 1997)
DEA's Dallas MET was requested to assist local law enforcement in
Terrell in their efforts to address an epidemic of drug-related
violence generated by three major crack cocaine distribution
organizations operating in the area. These included the Keith Jackson
Organization, the Robert Holliness/Maceo Haslip Organization, and
Rebecca and Steward Womack group. The MET deployment resulted in
federal and state charges being brought against 105 defendants for
conspiracy and distribution of crack cocaine. This roughly one percent
of the total population of the city of Terrell. With the exception of
two remaining fugitives, all of the primary MET targets were arrested
and each of the three trafficking organizations were effectively
dismantled. The residents of Terrell and their City Council were
extremely pleased with the effectiveness of the operation and expressed
their gratitude to DEA officials.
By combining the efforts of federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies, the MET initiative is making a difference in
neighborhoods throughout the United States by restoring a sense of
peace and order to communities formerly plagued by drug trafficking and
its attendant violence. Today, we have a total of 23 MET's, established
in 19 of our 20 domestic field divisions, with the exception of our
newly established Caribbean Division. Of our 19 field divisions, four
divisions have two MET's each, including Los Angeles, Miami, New
Orleans, and Houston.
dea's fiscal year 1999 budget request
In fiscal year 1999, we are requesting a total of 7,917 positions
(3,692 Special Agents) and $1.26 billion. This request represents an
increase of 508 positions (257 Special Agents) and $63.9 million over
our fiscal year 1999 base budget. Program enhancements for fiscal year
1999 are contained within two strategic funding initiatives:
Initiative I--Attack International Organized Crime through the
Expansion of DEA's Overseas Presence
Within our first strategic initiative, we are requesting a total of
37 positions (17 Special Agents) and $8.7 million to work with our
foreign drug enforcement counterparts in building cases against the
leaders of international drug trafficking networks which have a direct
impact on the U.S. This strategy will be accomplished by opening new
offices overseas, adding personnel to existing foreign offices, and
where necessary, making security improvements to our overseas
locations.
New offices will be opened in Tashkent, Uzbekistan; Hanoi, Vietnam;
and Trinidad-Tobago, and DEA will expand its existing presence
throughout the Caribbean, Central America, and Asia by adding Special
Agent and support personnel in Ponce; St. Thomas; St. Croix; Barbados;
Curacao; Jamaica; Haiti; the Dominican Republic; and Manila,
Phillippines. In addition, a total of five analyst positions for Mexico
and an additional five positions and $1.1 million are requested to
support enforcement programs coordinated in our foreign offices.
Initiative II--Attack International Organized Crime's Domestic Drug
Distribution Networks
Through our second strategic initiative, we are requesting a total
of 471 positions (240 Special Agents) and $53.1 million to fund a
comprehensive approach to drug law enforcement within the United States
by: (1) augmenting our resources in domestic locations affected by
Caribbean-based drug trafficking organizations; (2) emphasizing the
growing role of methamphetamine and heroin investigations in the U.S.;
(3) improving federal, state and local law enforcement coordination
across the country; and (4) providing the support infrastructure
necessary to bolster agency enforcement operations throughout the U.S.
A total of 70 positions (42 Special Agents) and $5.6 million are
requested to enhance DEA domestic offices in cities that are being
detrimentally affected by the influx of violent trafficking groups
based in the Caribbean. DEA's implementation of the Caribbean Corridor
Initiative coincides with its ongoing, and very successful, Southwest
Border Strategy. It attacks the command and control functions of
criminal organizations that import drugs across the Southwest border
for distribution throughout the U.S. In an attempt to address the
burgeoning flow of cocaine and heroin through the Caribbean Corridor,
DEA's fiscal year 1998 appropriation provided the agency with 20
Special Agent positions for its Caribbean Field Division and 40 for its
Miami Field Division.
DEA will direct these new resources against the Colombian cell
managers' command and control functions and the network of Dominican
traffickers sent to the U.S. to control the wholesale distribution of
cocaine and heroin throughout the East Coast. Personnel enhancements
will provide DEA with an increased ability to build prosecutable cases
against the Colombian syndicates' leadership, while simultaneously
allowing the agency to target their surrogates from the Dominican
Republic and Puerto Rico who comprise the ever growing labyrinth of
distribution networks on the East Coast.
Funding for the Caribbean corridor will enable DEA to focus
resources on major groups trafficking through Puerto Rico. For example,
Alberto Orlandez-Gamboa, closely associated with the Urdinola-Grajales
family, controls the distribution of thousands of kilograms of cocaine
into New York and New Jersey. While safely based in Colombia, Gamboa
controls a syndicate which conceals drug shipments in containers of
fruits and vegetables shipped to the U.S. through Puerto Rico. In March
1997, DEA arrested principal members of the Gamboa organization in
Puerto Rico and seized over 600 kilograms of cocaine and $3 million in
assets. In another investigation, this one conducted against Celeste
Santana, DEA determined that Santana's organization controlled a
transportation group which used a cadre of criminals at the Luis Munoz
Marin International Airport to smuggle cocaine from Puerto Rico to New
York.
A total of 223 positions, including 100 Special Agents and $24.5
million are requested to implement a comprehensive approach for
targeting and investigating methamphetamine trafficking, production and
abuse across the U.S. As I previously testified, the emergence of the
Mexican syndicates and their growing domination of methamphetamine
production and distribution has redefined the methamphetamine problem
in the U.S. In order to attacking these syndicates as well as address
the growth of ``mom'' and ``pop'' clandestine laboratory operations
across the country, we are requesting 156 positions (100 Special
Agents) and $13.7 million for the additional investigative resources
necessary to target major methamphetamine trafficking organizations
operating in the U.S. The primary purpose of these resources is to
establish a sufficient level of Special Agent investigative strength to
significantly reduce methamphetamine trafficking and production and
ultimately, have an impact on the drug's availability on the streets of
our communities.
Many state and local law enforcement agencies, where emerging
methamphetamine markets and producers exist, lack the requisite
training and experience to investigate and dismantle clandestine
laboratories. In fact, a survey conducted at the Methamphetamine
Conference in February 1996 suggested that two-thirds (64 percent) of
state and local law enforcement are having difficulties conducting
methamphetamine investigations. Although roughly half attributed their
problems to limited personnel, others cited financial constraints, poor
intelligence resources, and an overall lack of knowledge of the hazards
associated with clandestine laboratories.
In an effort to address this problem, DEA has, to date, trained and
certified a total of 2,016 state and local officers in clandestine
laboratory investigative techniques. In our fiscal year 1998
appropriation, we received a total of $4.5 million in reimbursable
funding through the COPS Methamphetamine Program for additional
clandestine laboratory training for state and local officers. With this
funding, DEA anticipates training approximately 1,000 new state and
local officers over the next two years. (Note: This funding was not
part of DEA's direct appropriation, but was included in DOJ's COPS
Program appropriation).
Included in DEA's fiscal year 1999 methamphetamine program
enhancement is a total of $392,000 to continue work to establish a
National Clandestine Laboratory Database (NCLDB) at DEA's El Paso
Intelligence Center. The NCLDB will give federal, state, and local drug
law enforcement centralized intelligence on all clandestine laboratory
seizures by collecting, storing, and processing information from
approximately 3,000 law enforcement agencies located throughout the
U.S. This database will provide a true national perspective on the
clandestine laboratory problem, based on the information on laboratory
operations received from all levels of law enforcement.
Currently, DEA, through the Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF), is the
sole federal law enforcement agency funding clandestine laboratory
cleanup projects. In fiscal year 1996, DEA was provided $2 million from
the AFF to pay for clandestine laboratory cleanups. However, in
response to the significant increases in clandestine laboratory
activity, DEA obligated more than $4 million over the course of the
year, a 100 percent increase in expenses. In fiscal year 1997, DEA
spent $7.1 million on clan lab cleanups, as methamphetamine activity in
the U.S. continued to gain momentum.
In fiscal year 1998, DEA anticipates requiring approximately $9.6
million for clandestine laboratory cleanups. During fiscal year 1998,
we will receive a one-time $5 million reimbursement of funds from the
COPS Methamphetamine Program for state and local clandestine laboratory
cleanups. However, this funding must be used strictly for state and
local clandestine laboratory cleanups; it cannot be used to offset the
ever-increasing number of DEA case-derived clandestine laboratory
seizures and related cleanups. DEA is therefore requesting a total of
$4.1 million in direct program funding for fiscal year 1999 to
supplement anticipated agency resources. This being the case, along
with the uncertainty of AFF funding from year to year (AFF funding
decisions are based on the total value of assets seized each year,
which can fluctuate significantly), DEA will continue to need to
supplement its own base program funding for clandestine laboratory
cleanups in the years to come.
In fiscal year 1999, DEA is also requesting 148 positions (95
Special Agents) and $12.9 million to combat heroin trafficking,
production, and distribution networks operating in the U.S. These
additional positions are critical for DEA to maintain a heightened
capability to address the growing availability of heroin in cities and
towns, like Plano, Texas, across the country.
An additional 28 positions (3 Special Agents) and $7 million are
requested to improve cooperative drug law enforcement operations at the
federal, state, and local level through enhanced coordination,
information sharing and the minimization of duplicate efforts. This
classified project, initiated in 1991, has been an immensely successful
cooperative venture between DEA, the FBI, and the Department of
Justice's Criminal Division. It must continue to expand to provide
unique real time intelligence data to federal counter-drug efforts. A
classified briefing properly detailing this request can be scheduled
for appropriately cleared individuals.
A total of 2 positions and $3.1 million is requested to establish
an alternate backup site for DEA's Network Control Center (NCC). The
purpose of a backup site is to prevent a worldwide ``shut down'' of
DEA's communications due to a catastrophic event at DEA's primary NCC.
Failure to provide an alternate site for the NCC potentially
jeopardizes all agency-wide operations.
Finally, as a separate program initiative, we are requesting an
increase of $2.1 million for our Drug Diversion Control Fee Account
(DDCFA).
This enhancement request includes $500,000 for the purchase of
computers, technical equipment and contract support to address our drug
diversion case workload, as well as funding for expansion of DEA's
Computer and Drug Forensics Programs. In addition, $1.6 million will be
used for contract support, hardware, and software to re-engineer our
Automated Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) and Controlled
Substances Act Systems (CSA).
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the committee
for your continued support. I want to assure you that I am making every
effort to ensure the additional resources you have given to DEA are
applied in the most effective and efficient manner. I also want to
assure you that the men and women of DEA are working tirelessly to
bring to justice those responsible for the spread of heroin, cocaine,
and methamphetamine in our country.
As we saw with the Cali crime syndicate in 1995, effective drug law
enforcement requires a commitment to years of painstaking
investigation. The leaders of the powerful criminal groups who direct
drug trafficking in our country issue their orders from the safety of
sanctuaries in Mexico and Colombia. Without the complete cooperation
and support of the governments in these countries, we cannot possibly
hope to achieve the maximum benefit from the resources provided.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to update you on
the status of our drug efforts within the United States and detail
DEA's fiscal year 1999 request for resources. I would be happy at this
time to take any questions you may have regarding current agency
operations or our requested program enhancements.
STATEMENT OF DORIS MEISSNER
Senator Gregg. Commissioner Meissner.
Ms. Meissner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here today on behalf of
the President's fiscal year 1999 budget request for INS. Let me
start by thanking you for the support that you have given us
over the last several years. The resources that Congress has
generously provided to INS are producing dramatic and concrete
results. The administration and Congress have worked together
to make more progress in immigration in the last 5 years than
has been made in decades.
Through our joint efforts, we are addressing issues that
had been ignored for years and are bringing vitality to a long-
neglected agency. Our achievements are having a positive impact
on communities around the country. In towns in the Nation's
midsection, like Storm Lake, NE, where our efforts to identify
illegal workers in meat packing plants have helped return $11-
an-hour jobs to American workers; and along the Southwest
border, in places like Brownsville, TX, where the reduced crime
rate has been attributed to Operation Rio Grande, which we
launched in August to improve the quality of life in south and
west Texas communities.
In San Diego, we have dramatically reduced illegal border
crossings and pushed apprehensions to a 17-year low. In
addition, last year, we removed 113,000 illegal aliens with
criminal records or outstanding removal orders, 20,000 more
than the goal that we had set. These removals ensure that
criminal aliens are not released onto our streets or
incarcerated further at the expense of State or local
governments.
We have also hired over 6,000 people in the last 2 years,
including 1,000 Border Patrol agents each year, who were
trained at facilities in Georgia and South Carolina. The list
is far longer, and those examples are provided in our
testimony. Once, we lacked the resources that we needed to do
our job. Now, we are showing that, when given the staffing and
the technology, combined with new strategies that we have
developed, we can do the job. These milestones are being
reached at a unique time in our Nation's history. Not since the
turn of the last century has immigration offered so many
opportunities and also posed so many challenges in the country
and to the Federal Government.
The reality is that the pressure of illegal activity and
the demands created by legal crossings of our shores and
borders have never been greater. There are more people coming
in and out of our ports of entry to be inspected; more pressure
from smuggling of contraband and illegal aliens by organized
crime syndicates; more people applying for naturalization and
other immigration benefits than at any time in history. These
external challenges have created an enormous impact on our
work, but we have had internal challenges to address as well.
We have been addressing infrastructure issues, particularly
questions of how to improve the performance of an agency that
has two different but interdependent functions. The sheer
growth of our agency demands that we examine how we are
organized to carry out our mission and our responsibilities. In
order to build on the results that we have achieved, we want to
organize ourselves in a way which best achieves future success.
We are working with the Department of Justice and the
administration on a plan for structural reform that would
significantly restructure the way business is done at INS. In
order to draw on the best practices used by corporate and other
governmental entities, INS has hired a management consulting
firm, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, to assist us. Our proposal will
soon be finalized and will be delivered later this month.
Just as we are sparing no effort to apprehend or remove
those who have no right to enter or remain in this country, we
are also making every effort to serve those who have the right
to be here, especially those who are eligible to become
citizens. Our foremost challenge now is to improve the way that
we provide our services to these individuals. Our Office of
Naturalization Operations has built the foundation for an
entirely new customer service orientation in the way that we
handle not just citizenship but all immigration benefits.
We are currently creating what we call application support
centers all around the country, which are responsible solely
for providing fingerprint and related services to our
constituents. Ninety-two percent of our customers will be
within 25 miles of an application support center, while others
who are homebound or in remote areas will be served by mobile
vans.
Next fiscal year, we are seeking an increase of $413
million and an additional 2,600 positions. What will we do with
it? We will continue our efforts to make important differences
at our borders, in the interior of our country, and at our
offices that serve our customers. Highlights of some of those
initiatives are as follows: for the border, we are requesting
1,000 new Border Patrol agents to maintain the control we have
gained in key areas and to continue deploying a significant
number of new agents to Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico to
further gain control there.
We also plan to add more state-of-the-art technology and to
construct 8 new Border Patrol facilities and undertake 10
fencing and road projects. In order to address the fact that
the incarcerated criminal population is outpacing INS resources
for removing aliens from detention settings, we are planning to
expand our staffing of the institutional hearing program at
Bureau of Prisons release sites and at 12 of the county jails
with the highest foreign-born populations. We also plan to add
nine videoconferencing units at local jails throughout the
country to enable us to more efficiently remove criminal aliens
who might otherwise be released by local authorities.
We are also seeking increases in our own detention
capabilities through the construction of four projects to be
completed in fiscal year 2000. We are requesting funding for
over 1,000 new detention beds, including an additional 126
juvenile beds as well as 122 new positions to support that
space.
In order to launch a comprehensive antismuggling
initiative, we are requesting 124 positions, including 53
special agents to concentrate on the staging areas in the
interior of the country that are being used by smugglers. This
will allow us to build on efforts like those in western
Colorado, where we are intercepting dangerously overloaded and
speeding vans containing aliens. To investigate a growing
number of fraudulent immigration benefit applications, we
request 70 positions to establish multidisciplinary fraud
teams. To handle the complex tasks of moving legal traffic
through and handling expedited exclusion of illegal traffic at
the ports of entry, we are requesting 330 inspectors for the
airports and 100 for the land ports of entry.
To enhance efforts with other law enforcement agencies, we
are seeking $17 million for JPATS, which is the air transport
service with the marshals that returns deportable aliens to
their home countries, and that will allow us to increase
removal of criminal aliens and reduce commercial transport
dependency; and 15 special agents for joint terrorism task
forces to aid our Government's counterterrorism work.
prepared statement
In summary, we will continue to produce results and to
build on the progress we have made in the last several years.
We will use the money that you provide to continue to do what
you and what the American people expect of us; that is, to
protect our Nation's tradition of being both a nation of
immigrants and a nation of laws.
Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Commissioner.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doris Meissner
introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's
fiscal year 1999 budget request for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS). Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts and those of the
other Members of the Subcommittee to provide continued support and
increased resources to INS to strengthen and enforce our Nation's
immigration laws.
Mr. Chairman, I have now been with INS for more than four years. It
has been five years of constant change and unprecedented growth at INS.
To paraphrase a recent article in Newsday (2/3/98), at times my
experience here has been similar to managing in a storm. Since 1993, we
at INS have been operating in a changing policy and statutory
environment which includes significantly increased duties under new
legislation, substantial staff and budget enhancements, and increased
public demand for services. The new global economy is matched by global
movements of people that are resulting in greater demands on the
agency. Last year, 320 million people visited our country legally,
compared to only 197 million ten years ago. We made 500 million
inspections at our ports-of-entry last year, and turned back over half
a million people at the ports-of-entry. In addition, INS formally or
informally removed another 1.5 million who were not eligible to enter
this country.
The agency's mission is a complex one, with many challenges and new
demands facing us. Yet, we have made and will continue to make
significant improvements to our enforcement of immigration law as well
as to our ability to deliver services to eligible immigrants.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1999 budget I present to you today
continues to build on our efforts to strengthen our borders, increase
our enforcement efforts in the American workplace, remove record
numbers of criminal and other deportable illegal aliens from America's
streets and prisons, focus on customer service by processing
applications for citizenship and legal entry into our country
expeditiously, fairly, and with integrity, and enhance the
professionalism of our workforce.
Before I begin discussing the fiscal year 1999 budget request, I
would like to take a moment to tell you about the notable achievements
we have made.
border enforcement
First, I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee for
working with the Attorney General and me to develop a deployment plan
for the personnel enhancements needed to support the Administration's
Immigration Strategy, and particularly for allowing us to continue to
deploy new agents to Texas and New Mexico in support of our recent
operations.
In 1994, the Attorney General and I announced a comprehensive
border enforcement strategy, which balances enforcement efforts with
improved facilitation of legal traffic. We continue to focus resources
on critical operational areas of the southern border, in support of
this strategy. We exceeded our fiscal year 1997 goal of 6,859 Border
Patrol agents on-board by the end of the fiscal year, adding more than
1,000 new agents over the course of the year. As of February 14, we had
7,165 Border Patrol agents on-board. Since fiscal year 1993, we have
almost doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. By the end of fiscal
year 1998, we will have a total of 7,859 agents on-board (not including
pilots). Border Patrol agent growth along the Southwest border will
have increased by 71 percent over the same time period.
New Border Patrol agent classes are scheduled throughout the year
and we have developed a comprehensive growth management plan to meet
the fiscal year 1998 goal. As part of the plan, we have also
strengthened recruitment efforts through more focused outreach
activities. We have also taken measures to help ensure that we are
producing the best qualified agents to supervise the new officers. A
newly designed competency-based promotional assessment system is now in
place for all Border Patrol agents seeking promotions to supervisory
and managerial positions at the GS-11 through GS-15 grade levels.
In addition to providing the needed personnel enhancements for an
effective border enforcement strategy, this Administration has
outfitted agents with the equipment and technology necessary to perform
their jobs more efficiently and safely. Focusing additional resources
on new Border Patrol personnel and equipment has yielded significant
results. Apprehensions have dropped dramatically in targeted areas.
Operations such as ``Hold the Line'' and ``Gatekeeper'' have
significantly diminished illegal immigration and alien smuggling in El
Paso and San Diego. For example, in San Diego, historically the most
heavily crossed area of the border, apprehensions are at a 17-year low.
Another sign of our success is the shift of undocumented alien movement
and organized migrant trafficking over the U.S. Border from traditional
crossing points to areas that are more difficult for illegal migrant
crossings.
While our border management efforts from 1993 to 1995 focused on El
Paso, San Diego and Arizona, beginning in 1997 we expanded our focus to
South Texas and New Mexico. ``Operation Rio Grande,'' launched in
August 1997 in Brownsville, Texas, is a special multi-year operation
designed to gain and maintain control of targeted border areas through
a combination of new technology and additional manpower. An important
feature of ``Operation Rio Grande'' is the integration of a broad range
of INS enforcement operations. Border Patrol agents, Inspectors at
ports-of-entry, Investigators, Intelligence analysts, and Detention and
Deportation Officers are all contributing to the operation. As part of
the operation, in August 1997, 69 Border Patrol agents were detailed to
Brownsville to step-up enforcement efforts. In September, we began
deploying special response teams to ports-of-entry where we expect
increased numbers of fraudulent entry documents. We anticipate
significantly lowered apprehension and local crime rates as a result of
the operation.
One of the main goals of our border enforcement strategy is to
improve the safety of American communities along the Southwest border.
In the areas where we have launched major enforcement operations, we
have heard from citizens about the improvements in their communities.
We have seen a drop in crime rates in some of the areas. According to
Assistant Chief David Bejarano of the San Diego Police Department,
``Operation Gatekeeper continues to be a major factor in reducing
border area crime. There has been such a significant decrease in border
crime that we have deployed some of our border area officers to other
areas of concern. Before Gatekeeper, we had to maintain a continuous
presence in the border area to deal with the excessive levels of crime
and violence. It is without question the quietest and safest the border
has ever been in this area.'' San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst
echoed this sentiment in a September 1997 article in the San Diego
Union-Tribune: ``The closer you get to the border, the more property
crimes have dropped. That tells us that border enforcement is reducing
crime.''
Our progress along the border is also evident at the San Ysidro
Port-of-Entry, which is one of the world's largest and busiest ports.
Several years ago, commuters were forced to wait over two hours to
cross the border into San Diego. Today, the average wait has been
reduced to no more than 20 minutes. The Inspections staffs are working
on incorporating the best practices from San Ysidro into other ports-
of-entry. In fiscal year 1998, 281 additional Immigration Inspectors
will be deployed to air ports-of-entry. The increased number of
Inspectors will facilitate the travel of passengers and provide major
improvements in meeting the processing time requirements at our
international airports.
These accomplishments could not have been made without the
continued support of the Subcommittee.
removal of illegal aliens
The removal of criminal and other deportable aliens is one of the
key components of INS' comprehensive strategy to prevent and deter
illegal immigration. During fiscal year 1997, INS removed more than
113,000 criminal and other illegal aliens, an increase of more than
44,000 over last year's record and 20,000 over its target of 93,000
removals. Our target for fiscal year 1998 is a record 127,300 removals.
We are well on our way to reaching this goal--according to our most
current data, removals for first quarter of fiscal year 1998 totaled
over 34,000; over 12,000 were criminal removals.
Criminal alien removals totaled about 51,000 for fiscal year 1997,
36 percent above the previous year. Of the criminal aliens removed, 61
percent had convictions for crimes considered aggravated felonies under
immigration law. Drug convictions accounted for 52 percent of the
criminal alien removals.
Removals of other deportable aliens reached almost 63,000 for last
fiscal year, up 95 percent from fiscal year 1996. The expedited removal
process, established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), contributed to this increase,
producing about 23,000 mostly non-criminal removals in its first six
months of implementation.
In addition to the number of aliens formally removed, INS also
removed almost 80,000 aliens without formal proceedings in fiscal year
1997. This category includes several methods of removal, but most are
aliens who elect to waive any hearing before an immigration judge and
voluntarily return to their home countries. When combined with the
formal removals, INS identified, apprehended and removed almost 193,000
aliens in fiscal year 1997. This figure does not include an estimated
1.3 million aliens apprehended and returned at the border.
The INS removed a total of 14,851 criminal aliens through the
Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), which involves identifying and
processing deportable inmates prior to their release from Federal,
State and Local institutions. Removals through the IHP program in
fiscal year 1997 were 44 percent above fiscal year 1996 levels. During
fiscal year 1997, four new sites were added to the Federal IHP,
bringing the total number of sites to ten.
The INS' ability to detain aliens is directly linked to our ability
to remove them from the United States. In fiscal year 1997, INS was
allocated funding for an additional 2,700 beds, bringing total
detention capacity to 12,050. As of September 30, the number of aliens
occupying available beds was 13,491. Criminal aliens occupied about 59
percent of available detention beds through fiscal year 1997.
automation and technology improvements
Many of our initiatives would not be successful without concurrent
technology improvements. One example is IDENT, our fingerprint
identification system. In fiscal year 1997, we met 105 percent of our
IDENT deployment goal. IDENT allows agents to identify criminal aliens
and repeat crossers who were apprehended previously. We performed ten
IDENT upgrades and deployed the system at 114 new sites, primarily in
the southern border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
and Florida. IDENT has been installed at all major sites along the
Southwest border and provides agents with a significant tool in
securing our Nation's borders. IDENT deployment will continue in fiscal
year 1998 at smaller sites as well as new sites along the Southwest
border.
The INS also expanded the Datashare initiative with the Department
of State (DOS). The increase in the exchange of data between DOS and
INS has streamlined the Inspections and Immigration Adjudication
process. A pilot program for Immigrant Visa automation and sharing of
information is now in place at 15 consular posts and 16 ports-of-entry.
About 53 percent of all Immigrant Visas issued have data transmitted
through the Datashare initiative. We are currently working on the Non-
Immigrant Visa phase of the Datashare program and plan to have a pilot
running before the end of fiscal year 1998.
Progress was also made in fiscal year 1997 on the implementation of
a new Border Crossing Card (BCC), mandated by Section 104 of IIRIRA. To
implement this provision, as of April 1, 1998, adjudication
responsibility for the BCC will shift to the Department of State (DOS),
and INS will be responsible for production of the card. There are three
BCC production machines that will be operational in May 1998. Two
additional machines will be operational in September 1998. These five
machines will enable INS to produce the total estimated number of BCC
cards, as well as other INS cards.
As part of the mandate in Section 110 of IIRIRA to develop ways to
automatically gather entry and exit information at all ports-of-entry
in the United States, during fiscal year 1997, INS began testing an
automated arrival and departure Form I-94 in the airport environment.
Upon arrival in the United States, a traveler presents the new machine-
readable form to an Immigration Inspector who records the arrival
information. The Inspector then provides the traveler with a machine-
readable departure card which the traveler returns when he leaves the
United States. The automated I-94 is being piloted in cooperation with
US Airways.
The INS members of the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) Team successfully deployed a Dedicated
Commuter Lane as promised by the Attorney General in June 1995. This
DCL, also known as a Pre-enrolled Access Lane (PAL) allows frequent,
low-risk commuters who enroll in the program, to bypass the regular
checkpoint procedures. This DCL lays the groundwork for a high-speed
lane scheduled to be completed at the San Clemente checkpoint in 1998.
The new effort will be based on the successful program already in place
at Otay Mesa, California. In addition, the SENTRI Team has continued
its efforts to deploy the secure, automated DCL to 5 additional sites
along the southwest border, submitting a site survey report to Congress
as part of the 1997 first quarter report on DCL's. Efforts to bring
this technology to the northern border were also initiated in 1997.
INS also developed an INTERNET Web site for the public, and
implemented it on August 12, 1996. To date, the INS site is serving
over 176,000 users per month and is currently averaging about 5,700
visits a day. INS is serving customers from 86 different countries and
over 200 cities representing all 50 States.
On January 7, 1997, INS implemented a special Web page for
Naturalization information. The page allows the user to look at
naturalization eligibility requirements, get forms, and even take an
online self-test of U.S. history and government. The new site has been
successful even in the short time it has been operational. To date,
33,618 users have accessed the site and 4,295 have taken the self-test.
In fiscal year 1997, we also continued work on improving standard
office automation infrastructure and educating INS users about new
automation. The INS trained 13,300 people in the agency on basic
automation so that they can effectively use the new equipment. For the
sixth year in a row, INS has received the Federal Technology Leadership
Award for our work on automation.
interior enforcement
Interior enforcement is a necessary companion to border control as
part of the Administration's immigration strategy. With the progress of
our border enforcement strategy in regaining control along the border
and deterring illegal immigration, we have seen increases in alien
smuggling. As the border is becoming more difficult to cross illegally,
there is an increase in the demand for fraudulent documents. Aliens are
now showing up in the work forces of industries that previously were
not part of the illegal labor stream, and we are broadening our efforts
to deal with these changes.
Our accomplishments demonstrate our commitment to interior
enforcement. In fiscal year 1997, INS reached the largest worksite
settlement ever against a Texas restaurant chain, which agreed to pay a
$1.75 million fine for knowingly hiring and employing illegal aliens.
We exceeded our goals in completions of worksite enforcement criminal
cases by 29 percent and completions of administrative cases by 25
percent. We completed over 5,000 lead-driven administrative cases in
fiscal year 1997, exceeding fiscal year 1996 case completions by 46
percent. Criminal cases presented to the U.S. Attorneys Offices
increased by 80 percent from fiscal year 1996, to a total of 146 in
fiscal year 1997.
Fines levied against employers for substantive violations--hiring
violations as opposed to paperwork violations--increased to 60 percent
of total fines in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 39 percent over
fiscal year 1996. Worksite enforcement cases completed against
industries with a known history of noncompliance with the provisions of
employer sanctions represented 56 percent of all cases. We also
exceeded our goal for worksite apprehensions by 8 percent, apprehending
19,040 unauthorized workers in fiscal year 1997. In addition, in fiscal
year 1997, the INS entered into agreements with three states to share
information from worksite enforcement operations to promote state-run
replacement worker programs that foster the hiring of legal workers.
In fiscal year 1997, INS also began three new pilot programs, two
of which are joint efforts with the Social Security Administration, to
test systems designed to quickly and accurately verify whether new
employees are eligible to work in the United States. The INS began
seeking employers to participate in the programs in September 1997.
Significant progress has also been made in worksite enforcement
thus far in fiscal year 1998. During the first quarter of fiscal year
1998, we completed 1,011 lead-driven administrative cases. Ten criminal
cases have been presented to the U.S. Attorneys and 132 fines were
levied against employers.
antismuggling, antiterrorism, and overseas deterrence
In fiscal year 1997, INS successfully completed the investigation
of 32,251 criminal alien cases, a 44 percent increase over fiscal year
1996. Successfully completed cases are defined as those in which a
subject was prosecuted, or removed, or a benefit was denied based on
the outcome of the investigation. Criminal alien cases include large
scale organizations involved in ongoing criminal activity or individual
aliens involved in drug smuggling or terrorism.
We achieved impressive results in connection with major smuggling
cases. Examples of our success include a multi-regional/international
investigation that resulted in the dismantling of an alien smuggling
and exploitation ring in New York City involving deaf Mexicans. In
addition, INS, for the first time, linked an anti-smuggling
investigation in Arizona to a worksite enforcement investigation in
Georgia, which resulted in the indictment of five people involved in a
smuggling operation that provided undocumented workers to employers.
The INS also participated in the first joint INS/FBI task force
investigating alien smuggling.
In an effort to deter global migrant trafficking, INS opened
thirteen new overseas offices and assigned 45 additional officers as
part of the initiative ``Operation Global Reach,'' which began in
fiscal year 1997. For the first time, INS has established a permanent
presence of criminal investigators and intelligence analysts overseas
to work on deterring migrant trafficking in source and transit
countries. Our overseas offices, working closely with host governments,
were instrumental in crafting legislation criminalizing migrant
trafficking in several Latin American and Carribean countries.
cooperation with state and local law enforcement and communities
The INS focused in fiscal year 1997 on improving community
relations. A community relations officer (CRO) position was created to
help identify and resolve immigration-related community issues and
concerns and to educate the public on new immigration laws and
regulations. By the end of fiscal year 1997, seven officers were on-
board in key INS district and sector offices and another three CRO
positions will be filled in fiscal year 1998. The CRO's dealt with a
variety of issues, from responding to the public's need for information
on IIRIRA implementation and the effects of welfare reform to
responding to citizen reports of alien trafficking patterns and
requests for information. CRO's implemented a major community relations
operation in coordination with ``Operation Rio Grande'' along the
Southwest border. In Illinois, the CRO helped resolve immigration-
related conflicts and expanded state and city library citizenship
outreach projects. In New York, the CRO conducted conferences and
public education seminars with various community groups and local
government representatives.
In fiscal year 1997, INS held meetings with community groups from
California and Texas to explain the issues of concern to INS underlying
day labor site problems, and as a result, a grant was awarded by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance to the Los Angeles County Commission on
Human Relations to conduct a ``day labor project.'' The Commission's
study will identify models of different day labor sites where community
organizations and local law enforcement have effectively addressed
issues of public safety surrounding the sites. The resulting document
will provide information to cities and communities on ways to organize
the sites, which should reduce the demand for INS presence.
The INS also consulted with State and local law enforcement
officers in Utah and Florida on the designation of immigration
enforcement functions. A draft memorandum of understanding resulted
from the consultations in Salt Lake City and is currently being
reviewed by the Department of Justice.
The Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) was expanded during
fiscal year 1997. The LESC, which is located in Burlington, Vermont,
was started in fiscal year 1995. Since the LESC's inception, it has
received and processed 94,800 status inquiries from law enforcement
agencies in three states. The LESC currently responds to approximately
7,500 queries a month. The following locations currently have access to
the LESC: Arizona; Iowa; Nebraska; Utah; Vermont; Puerto Rico; San
Diego County; and Florida.
integrity
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the Subcommittee has expressed
concerns about several areas of INS' operations. I believe that we have
made great strides in addressing the problem areas and working to
ensure the integrity of our efforts.
Naturalization Improvements
The best example of our efforts to make significant improvement is
our work on naturalization. The naturalization program has been our
overriding concern for the past year. Addressing weaknesses in the
naturalization program is contributing to most of the change currently
underway at INS. In naturalization, we face one of our biggest
challenges, ensuring public confidence and trust.
In the time since I appeared before you last year, I have created
the Executive Office of Naturalization Operations (EONO) to reengineer
the naturalization process. Under EONO, INS has implemented strict
quality assurance procedures to improve processing, prevent mistakes,
and increase accountability. As you may know, INS has just finished its
review of the cases of individuals naturalized from August 1995 through
September 1996. The naturalization review was comprised of three
separate studies conducted by INS and supervised and validated by KPMG
Peat Marwick, an independent auditing and consulting firm.
In the ``Criminal History Case Review,'' which looked at all cases
where an applicant had a criminal history record with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, INS found 369 cases that were naturalized
despite having been convicted of a felony or a crime of moral
turpitude, and another 5,954 cases that failed to support
naturalization. Most of the 5,494 cases are those where the applicant
did not give accurate information about a criminal arrest, even though
the arrest itself may not have disqualified the applicant from being
naturalized. All of these cases are currently under review by the INS
Office of General Counsel for possible revocation of citizenship.
During the first quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Office of the General
Counsel has reviewed a total of 2,158 cases, 1,481 of which may be
appropriate for revocation.
The ``Random Sample Review'' found that during the period before
the implementation of quality assurance procedures, there was a high
error rate in processing naturalization applications due to a lack of
uniform processing standards and weak enforcement of the standards that
did exist. We have taken the necessary steps to address these problems.
KPMG reported in December that INS had made ``significant improvements
in the internal controls of the naturalization process and greatly
reduced the risk of incorrectly naturalizing an applicant.''
During its first ten months at INS, the newly-created Executive
Office of Naturalization Operations has achieved several significant
accomplishments. The primary focus has been on creating an
organizational structure and acquiring the personnel needed to
restructure the naturalization process. As of February 24, 1998, INS
had established 23 of 75 planned free standing Application Support
Centers (ASC's) and 51 ASC's collocated with existing INS offices. All
of these ASC's are currently open and taking fingerprints, in
accordance with the Fiscal Year 1998 Appropriations Act, that required
all fingerprints for INS benefits to be taken by INS or other law
enforcement agencies. By mid-March, all 75 free standing ASC's will be
open. For those who cannot reach the fingerprint sites, a fleet of 45
vans will serve as mobile fingerprint centers or they will be directed
to designated law enforcement agencies (DLEA's) operating under sole
source contract agreements with the INS. All DLEA's will use INS
fingerprint equipment and receive INS customer service training.
We have also made significant progress with the Direct Mail
program. Through the program, certain applications and petitions for
benefits are mailed directly to an INS service center for initial
processing, rather than to local INS district offices or suboffices. By
using Direct Mail, INS standardizes processing, reduces processing
times, and improves the quality of status information on cases provided
to the public. Currently, more than half of the INS offices have
transitioned to Direct Mail for all new naturalization applications. By
April 15, 1998, all district office and sub-offices will be part of
Direct Mail.
We are also working closely with the consulting firm of Coopers &
Lybrand L.L.P., which was contracted to assist us in reengineering the
naturalization program. Coopers & Lybrand recently provided us with
their proposed ``blueprint'' for the new naturalization process, which
addresses issues such as changing testing procedures, establishing a
telephone information and service center dedicated solely to
naturalization issues, as well as other structural and procedural
changes. We are moving forward to implement the plan. We are also
developing backlog reduction plans for all of the naturalization
offices. The steps being taken will dramatically improve the
naturalization system, and help restore public confidence in the
citizenship process.
INSpect
Another example of our commitment to addressing problem areas and
ensuring integrity is the INS Program for Excellence and Comprehensive
Tracking (INSpect). The program is a top to bottom review process that
focuses on assessing office effectiveness; determining compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and procedures; measuring performance
against established standards; and providing a means to share local
successes and solutions applicable to service-wide problems. The
program now consists of a corps of almost 800 subject matter experts
who serve on INSpect teams on a rotating basis. During 1997, INSpect
reviewed 8 INS offices which account for 23 percent of INS' field
employees, issued 3 draft INSpect reports and one final report. The
reports presented a total of 227 recommendations for corrections and
improvements and 13 best practices or local successes with INS-wide
applicability.
INSpect also did a great deal of work with naturalization
operations. The teams reviewed operations at all nine Service
Processing Centers and worked with field offices in preparation for the
KPMG audit, assessing agency-wide compliance with the Naturalization
Quality Procedures. Other subjects INSpect teams have addressed include
detention and deportation management and issues concerning temporary
holding areas and transportation in Western Region.
Restructuring
The various proposals to restructure or dismantle the INS have also
received considerable attention. As you may know, the President has
committed to review these proposals. The development of a restructuring
plan is being coordinated by the White House Domestic Policy Council
staff. The Congress has set a deadline of April 1 for the
Administration to provide a proposal to how to best restructure,
organize and manage immigration responsibilities.
I firmly believe that while INS' mission is complex, it is strongly
interconnected. The Administration supports the view that enforcement
and benefits are interrelated and that one should not be addressed
without the other in mind. We have already taken steps to streamline
the administrative infrastructure, deliver better services and improve
enforcement capabilities. With this in mind, the Department of Justice
has contracted with Booz-Allen & Hamilton, an independent consulting
firm, to provide advice to INS on how to achieve an implementation
strategy that is focused on functional, programmatic operations and
greater separation between enforcement and service functions. Booz-
Allen has reviewed restructuring options, consulted with other
Government agencies that have enforcement and service functions, and
will provide information to the Administration on the development of a
restructuring strategy in time to meet the April 1 deadline. I am
confident that we will develop a viable organizational structure that
will enable us to succeed in our service and enforcement missions.
As we examine issues of structure and reorganization, we will also
have to look at other issues such as our pay compensation system and
our management career development. There are currently a number of
contradictions that exist in overtime and retirement compensation in
various occupations.
fiscal year 1999 budget
Now I will turn to the fiscal year 1999 budget and initiatives
included in our request. For fiscal year 1999, we are seeking a total
budget of $4.2 billion and 31,499 positions for INS to further
strengthen the Administration's comprehensive immigration strategy. The
fiscal year 1999 budget represents a $390 million increase in funding
over the anticipated fiscal year 1998 spending level, and adds a total
of over 2,600 positions.
The INS budget for fiscal year 1999 continues to support the
immigration goals and strategies that the Administration and the
Service have pursued so effectively over the past several years. In
addition, it incorporates information on performance measurements that
will lead to better accountability regarding actual results achieved.
The thrust of INS' fiscal year 1999 budget is to further extend the
ongoing initiatives aimed at controlling our international borders--
encouraging and accommodating lawful commerce while simultaneously
discouraging and preventing the unlawful entry of illegal border-
crossers and dangerous drugs. The INS intends to build on its
successful multi-year strategy to effectively regulate the border, both
at and between the ports-of-entry, deter and correct illegal employment
in the interior of the United States, combat and punish the smuggling
of people and narcotics, as well as other immigration-related crime,
and remove quickly ever greater numbers of alien criminals and other
deportable persons. Concentration on the border areas and on the
buildup of the agent workforce will not be allowed to overshadow the
need to link border control with the requirement to enforce the
immigration laws at interior locations. To that end, specific funding
is requested for interior enforcement initiatives.
In addition to the expansion of INS' more visible enforcement
functions, additional funding requested will strengthen the removal
process, enhance interior investigative and enforcement functions,
improve benefits processing for legal immigrants and prospective new
citizens, and ensure that our employees and customers are provided
adequate facilities supported by the most comprehensive and modern
technology available. It is also necessary to ensure that the physical
workplace of INS employees, both agent and support staff, keeps pace
with the impressive growth of the agency's workforce. Also included in
this budget are requests for the personnel and other resources
necessary to efficiently and fairly enforce our immigration laws, as
well as implementing the broad legislative mandates that Congress
enacted in 1996. The intent of the INS fiscal year 1999 budget is to
provide the INS with the personnel and tools essential to perform its
vital purpose in the safest and most effective manner possible.
Refine border management strategy
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $225 million and 1,726 new
positions which will sustain facilitation of entry and control at
ports-of-entry, and continue the INS' National Border Control Strategy
of ``Prevention Through Deterrence.'' These funds will maintain the
aggressive hiring and training efforts begun in fiscal year 1996 and
continued in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, once again bringing
on-board a significant increase in the growing force of Border Patrol
agents and other immigration officers.
The request for new Border Patrol agents and Inspectors is
complemented by requested increases in force-multiplying technological
capabilities, which will enable INS to consolidate and expand upon the
achievements of the past several years. The goal of the fiscal year
1999 budget is to continue the expansion of our efforts to control the
nation's borders and facilitate lawful commerce while deterring and
denying the illegal movement of people and drugs.
A total of 1,140 positions and $103 million is requested for the
Border Patrol. These resources will provide an additional 1,000 Border
Patrol Agents to join those already patrolling the Southwest border in
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The deployment of these new
agents will confirm the Government's enduring commitment to the
National Border Control Strategy. At this point, the Border Patrol has
proven that it can control these border areas, and has achieved
dramatic results in areas like San Diego County in California and the
urban El Paso area in Texas. Recent expansion of efforts into the Texas
and New Mexico border will continue. At the same time, INS will not
neglect nor abandon its successful regulation and enforcement
operations in those border sectors now under control. While the
majority of the new agents will be deployed to the Southwest border,
the Border Patrol intends to deploy additional Border Patrol Agents
along the Northern border and maritime areas of south Florida.
The Service's Border Patrol Agents are assisted in the successful
accomplishment of their very difficult and demanding mission by state-
of-the-art technology. The fiscal year 1999 budget provides for one
position and $12 million in continued funding for development and
deployment of an integrated electronic surveillance system (ISIS) that
will, in effect, eventually help to create an ``electronic wall'' along
the border. The ISIS system extends the efficiency and effectiveness of
the line-watch Border Patrol Agents, especially in the more remote and
desolate regions, helping to deny these areas to illegal aliens and
drug smugglers. Fiscal year 1999 plans also call for $2.6 million for
the installation of more Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) systems on
Border Patrol aircraft, which will increase their night capabilities
and the purchase of individual infrared pocket scopes and night vision
goggles.
The INS requests 100 Immigration Inspectors and $7.7 million for
air ports-of-entry to improve facilitation by continuing the processing
of passengers through primary inspection within the 45-minute standard.
An additional 120 Inspectors, 10 Inspections support personnel and
$10.1 million are also requested for land and air ports-of-entry to
support the expedited removal process. Section 302 of IIRIRA grants
Inspectors the responsibility to remove fraudulent applicants for
admission back to their countries of origin. Of the 130 positions
mentioned above, a total of 100 positions will be deployed at major
land border ports and 30 positions will be deployed to airports.
In addition, the Service requests 217 positions and $19.5 million
to expand the departure management initiative at three major air ports-
of-entry. Key improvements will allow INS to deploy additional
automated I-94 equipment to allow INS to comply with Section 110 of the
IIRIRA for automated entry and exit control. A total of 210 Inspectors
is requested to staff airports to monitor the arrival/departure system.
Additional improvements to the Non-Immigrant Information System are
also requested as part of this initiative.
Further funding of $8.7 million is requested for automation and
reinvention of the inspections process at land, air, and sea ports of
entry. At the airports and seaports, INS plans to install new IBIS
equipment at 5 terminals, deploy 100 Portable Automated Lookout Systems
(PALS) notebooks to remote locations to allow for queries on INS'
lookout database, install Secondary 2000 equipment at 5 airports, and
expand the INSPASS project to two additional sites in fiscal year 1999.
A total of 6 positions are requested to support the deployment of these
new automation initiatives. The INS has also requested resources to
reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for communication costs related to
the use of IBIS.
In conjunction with Section 302 of IIRIRA, INS is required to
expeditiously process asylum claims of expedited removal aliens. In
order to meet the workload demands experienced at the land border and
airports, INS requests a total of 60 Asylum Officers, 20 support
personnel and $8 million for asylum offices nationwide. Without
additional staff, the Asylum program will be unable to meet the
projected growing needs for asylum case processing in fiscal year 1999.
The INS also requests 12 positions and $1.9 million to provide the
mandatory detention of inadmissible aliens in the expedited removal
process.
In order to support the increased deployment of officers to the
airports and seaports in fiscal year 1999, INS requests 34 positions
and $2.3 million for legal and management support. A total of 16
attorneys and 8 legal support will handle the anticipated litigation
needs resulting from the implementation of the expedited removal
process. In addition, 10 management support positions will recruit,
hire, deploy, and service the officers and other positions requested.
The INS requests $0.6 million in resources to provide fraudulent
document and mala fide passenger analysis training to international
airline carrier personnel and other overseas officials in fiscal year
1999. Three teams of 10 officers will be detailed for 60-day operations
for Operation Disrupt at select high volume illegal migration sites
globally.
In fiscal year 1999, the INS is requesting $48.6 million to support
new Border Patrol construction requirements. This request will provide
$36.1 million for the construction of eight Border Patrol facilities.
An additional $5.1 million is being requested in fiscal year 1999 for
the planning, site development, and design work required to support the
future construction of eight new facilities and four checkpoint
systems. The INS is also requesting $7 million for eight military (JTF-
6) and two other fencing and road projects. To help manage the
additional construction requirements caused by the INS' massive growth
in the last few years, $400,000 is being requested for six facility
program specialists.
Implement integrated interior enforcement strategy
The fiscal year 1999 Budget includes $115 million to support 745
new positions to address the presence and consequences of illegal
migration in the interior of the U.S. The evolving Interior Enforcement
Strategy for fiscal year 1999 complements INS' Border Control Strategy
by creating an interior ``net'' to apprehend those who have eluded INS'
front line of deterrence by using sophisticated alien smuggling
organizations. This strategy supports greater compliance with the
resource intensive provisions of IIRIRA by (1) responding to changing
migration patterns of illegal aliens and (2) effecting criminal alien
removals. INS' detention construction projects further strengthen this
strategy by expanding detention space needed to detain the increased
number of criminal and non-criminal aliens subject to removal.
The request includes 124 positions (53 of which are Special Agents)
and $13.2 million to increase anti-smuggling investigations and
initiate the National Intelligence Assessment. These resources will
concentrate on secondary urban staging areas in identified corridors.
Interior anti-smuggling enforcement teams using expanded new
investigative authorities (e.g., asset forfeiture, Title III
intercepts, and establishment of proprietaries and RICO prosecutions)
will continue these efforts at identified final destinations aiding in
the identification and prosecution of conspirators. To systematically
collect, assess, and disseminate intelligence in support of the
comprehensive anti-smuggling program, dedicated intelligence positions
will begin efforts to produce the national Intelligence Assessment.
To investigate fraudulent immigration benefit applications, INS
requests 70 positions (including 32 Special Agents) and $7.9 million to
establish multi-disciplinary fraud teams located in the Service Centers
and Asylum Offices. INS is experiencing increasing numbers of
fraudulent applications as a result of IIRIRA. For example, certain
districts are experiencing extensive cases of marriage fraud,
conspiracy, and citizenship testing fraud. Furthermore, INS continues
to identify and investigate large-scale fraud schemes, some involving
hundreds, and even thousands of suspect ``beneficiaries.'' Special
agents deployed on site at asylum offices and Service Centers will be
well positioned to defeat and investigate fraud.
Forty-three positions and $6.5 million are requested to increase
INS' ground transportation, provide escorts for deportable aliens in
transit to and from JPATS hubsites. An additional $10.5 million is
requested to support increased INS movement of over 46,000 illegal
aliens by JPATS, thereby reducing the need to remove aliens by
commercial aircraft.
A total of 30 positions (including 4 Special Agents) and $3.2
million are requested to expand Community-Based Enforcement Teams to
implement Section 133 of IIRIRA, which allows the Attorney General to
deputize State and local law enforcement to perform certain functions
of immigration officers. Three Community-Based teams consisting of a
Special Agent and State and local law enforcement officers would be
deployed to States with the highest illegal resident populations which
request assistance from INS. This will allow INS to work closely with
local law enforcement officials to address mutual problems associated
with illegal immigration.
Sixteen positions (including 15 Special Agents) and $3.1 million
are requested to augment participation in the Joint Terrorism Task
Forces (JTTF). The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, created in 1996, will
increase the workload associated with the JTTF by requiring, among
other things, the preparation of background reports on the proposed
candidates and arrest of the alien terrorists. This initiative requires
full-time dedicated Agents to correctly handle these classified removal
cases having national security implications.
A total of 294 positions and $31 million are requested for the
Institutional Removal Program (IRP) to identify criminal aliens
pursuant to IIRIRA provisions. These resources will support critically
needed detention and deportation and investigations staff; detention
space; alien transportation and welfare costs; and vehicles. The growth
of the incarcerated criminal alien population is outpacing INS
resources dedicated to removing aliens from institutional settings.
INS' strategy includes expanding previously enhanced IHP States;
increasing staffing at Bureau of Prison release sites; increasing staff
at the existing 12 county jails with the highest foreign-born
populations; directing resources at choke points to avoid backlogs at
State prisons, and decreasing instances where intake sites cannot hold
criminal aliens long enough for INS to get there with current
resources. This request will also fund additional space at the Federal
Correctional Complex at Allenwood and provide 9 additional Video
teleconferencing sites.
Forty-six positions and $4.5 million are requested to locate,
detain, and remove those aliens with final orders who are not in INS
custody. Section 305(a) of IIRIRA requires the detention of every alien
who becomes the subject of a final removal order. INS must be prepared
to locate and assume custody of aliens who receive final orders of
removal. INS will use a number of approaches such as the use of
absconder recovery and removal teams to ensure expeditious detention
and removal of aliens with final orders.
The Service is also requesting $22.5 million and 122 positions in
fiscal year 1999 to support its growing need for detention space. The
request for fiscal year 1999 includes: $9.4 million for 90 additional
positions, vehicles, and start-up costs to support the activation of
500 additional beds at the Port Isabel SPC; $9.4 million and 32
positions to support an additional 126 juvenile beds, which will
provide the INS with an average of 500 juvenile beds in fiscal year
1999; and $3.7 million for the reimbursement to the Public Health
Service (PHS) for 24-hour health care coverage at detention facilities
given the growing number of INS detainees.
In addition, for various detention construction projects, the
Service is requesting $12.6 million to replace old, antiquated dorms
and buildings that have not been adequately upgraded, add detention
space to detain criminal and non-criminal aliens subject to removal,
and approach congressionally mandated requirements to increase the
number of illegal aliens detained under the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Act (IIRIRA). It is projected
that the Service's average daily population will increase from 8,592 in
fiscal year 1996 to 23,863 in fiscal year 2001. Included in this
request is $10.7 million for the construction of four detention
projects to be completed in fiscal year 2000. An additional $1.9
million is being requested for the planning, site development, and
design work required to support four new detention projects scheduled
for future construction.
Improve institutional infrastructure
The fiscal year 1999 INS budget includes $48.7 million and 54
positions to support the INS' infrastructure requirements. The INS'
rapid growth in personnel over the past six years continues to have a
direct impact upon the agency's ability to meet its infrastructure
demands. In fiscal year 1999, INS will continue to address its
infrastructure weaknesses by increasing the replacement cycle of the
agency's vehicle fleet, implementing a maintenance and repair system
for its property inventory, and by improving and modifying INS'
existing facilities.
The Service is requesting $10 million and 4 positions to provide a
more rapid vehicle replacement cycle, which will result in a better
quality fleet, safer vehicles, lower operation and maintenance costs,
less fleet down time, and an increase in future fleet disposal sales
proceeds. At the end of fiscal year 1997, over 30 percent of INS'
fleet, more than 3,000 vehicles, exceeded the Federal Property
Management Regulation (FPMR) replacement standards. The fiscal year
1999 request will provide a 17 percent annual replacement cycle for
sedans and light trucks, a 14 percent replacement cycle for school-type
vehicles, and an 11 percent replacement for interurban buses. The four
automotive fleet analysts positions requested will oversee a
consolidated INS Fleet Management Program.
In fiscal year 1999, the INS is requesting $10.2 million and 43
positions to address the mounting maintenance and repair costs of INS-
owned buildings, roads, grounds, janitorial services, utility systems
maintained by INS, border roads and fences, stadium lights, and
communication towers. The resources being requested will provide
funding to reduce the backlog of INS maintenance and repair projects
which, between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2003, are projected to
cost between $140,000,000 and $191,000,000. These backlogged projects,
which include several Service Processing Centers, Border Patrol
checkpoints, and Border Patrol stations, represent the most serious
safety and health problems within INS. The new positions which we are
requesting and which will be dedicated to the field, are critically
needed to manage the number of repair and alteration projects and
provide maintenance of INS owned facilities.
The INS is requesting $26.4 million and 5 positions to provide
resources for new office space, above standard alterations, furniture,
ADP cabling, telecommunications, and security requirements. A
combination of factors, including: (1) historic space shortages; (2)
current requirements for lease renewals, forced moves, consolidations
and other unplanned actions; and (3) the new growth which the agency
has been experiencing in recent years, have created an enormous backlog
of ``One-Time'' construction requirements, which current practices of
using dedicated funding and lapse resources cannot adequately support.
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $2.1 million for systems
development, data management, and the implementation of its Computer
Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS 4.0). The INS
will use ADP and other emerging technologies to support efficient,
effective and integrated operations and management.
This request includes continued development and implementation of
the CLAIMS 4.0 system with additional CLAIMS form types. CLAIMS 4.0
will be less costly to maintain and more flexible to support various
reporting requirements. The new system will support 2D bar code
scanning, use of debit and credit cards for application fees,
deployment of electronic filing, electronic submission to external
agencies, scanning of biometric information with access to the
electronic A-file, and the use of secure and state-of-the-art fraud
resistant documents that include biometric data. A primary feature of
the CLAIMS 4.0 system is its ``process control'' mechanism that will
not allow the operators to skip steps or operations unless all data
fields are complete.
Improving professionalism
The fiscal year 1999 budget includes $16.2 million and 81 positions
to enable INS to continue its efforts to improve professional
standards, build upon and enhance its current management systems, and
provide the mission critical support needed to effectively carry out
its enforcement and service roles. This initiative focuses on the
overall professionalism of INS and its workforce, including resources
for the Legal Proceedings program, the Office of Internal Audit,
implementation of the Financial Management Information System,
reduction of INS' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) backlog, and
resources to support records centralization projects. The following
areas targeted for new resources address long-standing issues of
improving accountability, accuracy, and appropriate staffing levels, as
well as supporting the recent growth in legal casework primarily caused
by the enactment of IIRIRA:
Forty-five attorneys, 20 legal support personnel and $4.5 million
are requested to address the critical staffing shortfalls in the Legal
Proceedings program. The additional personnel will enable INS attorneys
to provide legal advice and assistance to the INS' operations
components, and to handle the program's work in such areas as employer
sanctions, civil document fraud, Federal court litigation, asylum
prescreening, labor cases, visa petitions, naturalization, conveyance
seizures, and the training of INS officers.
An additional 16 positions and $2 million are requested for the
Office of Internal Audit (OIA). These additional resources will enhance
the Service's capability to conduct internal investigations and
comprehensive INSpect reviews of the field offices. The OIA workload
has significantly increased over the past few years due to the agency's
extensive personnel growth, new investigative responsibilities
requiring OIA to review the files and disciplinary actions taken
against potential witnesses in Federal trials, and an increase in case
complexity and time-requirements.
A $5 million request for the Office of Finance will allow INS to
continue implementing its Financial Management Information System. This
implementation of an integrated financial management system will give
INS the ability to produce auditable financial statements that more
accurately reflect the status and use of funds.
Nineteen term positions and $4.7 million are requested to automate
the tracking and processing of its Freedom of Information Act/Privacy
Act (FOIA/PA) requests and to meet the current FOIA backlogs and
anticipated workload. The development of the FOIA/PA Information
Processing System (FIPS) program will enable INS to transform its
existing paper-intensive, manual processes into a computer-based
information processing system, placing INS in compliance with 1996
electronic FOIA legislation.
Improve and centralize INS records
Five positions and $8.5 million are requested to support continued
efforts to centralize and clean up INS records. The records
centralization effort will allow INS to improve the way it accesses,
stores, and delivers alien information. This compliments INS'
verification strategy by improving the accuracy of data, enhancing
response time, and increasing the accessibility of critical information
used to stop those individuals who are not authorized from working in
the United States, and to ensure that only those authorized receive
entitlements. Records cleanup will increase data integrity, which will
in turn lead to more rapid and accurate verification, and renewed
confidence in INS records by all of its customers, both internal and
external.
Specifically, INS will utilize the funds to improve infrastructure
for the Service's Records Program, which will be used in support of all
areas within INS, on both the enforcement and services sides.
Additionally, INS will expand the contracting of services to support
records operations, allow the Service to institutionalize multilevel
quality controls to ensure effective compliance with re-engineered
records operating procedures during the transition to centralization,
and promote the completeness, accuracy, and predictability of
transition operations through increased standardization. The Service is
currently using records contract support in Los Angeles, Chicago,
Miami, New York, San Francisco, Houston, and Newark. A portion of these
contractor resources will be redirected to support operations in the
centralized records environment.
conclusion
These new fiscal year 1999 resources will give INS the personnel
and tools needed to carry out the effective immigration strategy begun
four years ago. I look forward to continuing to work with the
Subcommittee. With your support of this budget request, we can carry
forward the improvements made during the last few years. We have made
great strides in addressing problems areas and working to ensure the
agency's integrity. I want to work with you to alleviate your concerns
and build your trust as we continue our efforts to make this nation's
immigration system the best that it can be.
This concludes my formal statement on the 1999 budget request for
INS. I would be happy to answer any questions which you, Mr. Chairman,
and Members of the Subcommittee may have.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH
Senator Gregg. Director.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members
of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear here. Let me also
begin by thanking this committee for its generous support of
FBI programs; in particular, the counterterrorism resources
which you expanded greatly over the past 2 years and which have
been put to immediate good use for the protection of the
country. Also, your resources in support with respect to the
crimes against children program has been a phenomenal success:
177 convictions; many more cases being developed in an area
where all of us are very vulnerable.
I also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your comments with respect
to the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make. As you
know thus far this year, more State and local officers have
been killed in the line of duty than in 1997, and those are
trends which are very sobering for us here today.
Let me just very briefly go over what is a much more
lengthy submission, with your permission. The FBI in 1998,
obviously, faces many of the same challenges but also many new
challenges. In June, we will celebrate our 90th birthday as an
institution. Many things have changed over those 90 years and
many of the threats remain. Espionage and intelligence
activities are still areas which occupy great interest and many
resources. In addition to the traditional intelligence
activities, as you know, we have approximately 23 foreign
countries which conduct economic espionage in the United
States, and since our economic security corresponds to our
national security, that is an area of great vulnerability.
Terrorist threat
The terrorist threat, as we have seen, unfortunately,
continues unabated both overseas and at home; again, thanks to
your support and the resources that the committee has provided,
we have seen tangible results, whether taking Kasi back for
trial in Fairfax County; the convictions of McVeigh and Nichols
for domestic terrorism; or the return and multiple convictions
of Yousef for the World Trade bombing case. Those are the cases
which remind us of the increasing vulnerability and threats
from both domestic and foreign terrorists.
With respect to weapons of mass destruction, again, the
support which this committee and the Congress provided put us
in good stead several weeks ago in Las Vegas. Although the
threat turned out to be not a credible threat, all of the
indicia but, more importantly, the preparedness, including the
equipment, the hazardous materials response unit which has been
established in our laboratory, the cooperation and the
prearrangements between the military and the Department of
Justice, allowed us to respond to that event much more
successfully than we would have in the absence of those
resources and preparation.
We have investigated over 100 cases in 1997 with respect to
weapons of mass destruction. Although most of these have turned
out to be noncredible, that is three times the number of cases
from 1996. We are using the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici domestic funds
to train local first responders all over the United States.
Those are protections and benefits which will enure to all of
the people of the country.
We are concerned about both traditional and emerging
criminal enterprises, not only Russian organized crime and
Asian groups but even the traditional groups here in the United
States such as La Cosa Nostra.
Encryption issue
The encryption issue continues to be an issue which
challenges public safety and national security, and we
certainly support a continued commonsense dialog, as well as
effective measures to balance an encryption policy so that we
can have robust encryption and also not impinge on our national
security or our protection. We see spies like Ames and
terrorists like Yousef using encryption. Also now, to an
increasing extent, drug dealers all over the United States are
using various levels of encryption to defeat court-authorized
electronic surveillance orders.
Budget increases
With respect to the 1999 budget summary, very quickly, we
have asked for $3 billion in direct budget authority, and that
includes 28,834 permanent and reimbursable positions, which
includes 11,677 agents, which will be the highest special agent
complement that the FBI has had. We are asking for program
increases in the amount of $94 million in direct budget
authority and 340 permanent and reimbursable positions,
including 146 special agents.
Counterterrorism and cybercrime
Of the four major program areas where we have asked for
increases, I would highlight counterterrorism and cybercrime as
the first category. In many ways, in 1998, the computer and the
modem have taken the place of the telephone and the motor
vehicle 60 years ago. Law enforcement had to quickly retool and
refocus its resources in the face of those technological
developments. With respect to what the FBI does, both in
national security and public safety, we need to retool and
prepare to deal with these new, emerging types of technology
which are being used to commit crimes of every category.
Electronic intruders and computer sabotage cases
specifically have begun to increase at an alarming rate.
Already, the FBI is working 458 cases in the first quarter of
1998. That is almost double the total number of cases in 1997.
We are increasingly reliant in the United States on our
national information infrastructure: all of our agencies, all
of our businesses and, to a greater extent, our personal lives
are directly related to safe, reliable, and protected commerce
over these new electronic and technological means.
We have set up in the FBI now, six computer investigation
and threat assessment squads. We began in 1993 with one squad
in Washington, DC. We now have squads in New York, San
Francisco, and three other cities. For 1999, we have asked for
the resources to establish six new computer squads around the
country. To an increasing extent, these squads not only work on
computer intrusion cases but also assist other squads when a
search warrant turns up hard drives and disks instead of boxes
of records. The squads are also charged with liaison with the
private sector in those particular regions to deal with
investigating cyber threats. These squads give us forensic
capability in a venue which is very new to us.
We established the Computer Investigation and
Infrastructure Threat Assessment Center in July 1996. We are
asking for resources to increase both the size and the
capability of that facility and to incorporate it into the
National Infrastructure Protection Center, which the Department
of Justice has established in a coordinated fashion. Under the
counterterrorism fund, $33.6 million is being requested for
implementing the administration's policies with respect to the
findings of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure, and this will be used to establish the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Both State, local, Federal as
well as private sector participation will exist with respect to
the center.
We are also asking for additional resources to continue the
preparation of State and local first responder resources with
respect to weapons of mass destruction, reaction, and
investigation.
We have asked for funding for an information sharing
initiative. More than one single issue which I receive when I
travel around the field regularly to visit our 56 divisions is
the real necessity to upgrade and renetwork the entire
information collection, storage, retrieval, and analysis system
of the FBI. Although we have a wide-area network and a Novell
system which is adequate for present purposes, it is inadequate
in terms of long-range investigative competence, particularly
when the information which we are now acquiring is being
acquired in digital form. We have asked for an initiative over
the next 4 years which will give the FBI the equipment,
training, and infrastructure to deal with what is increasingly
the greatest challenge for an agency which collects
information: which is the technological means of collecting,
storing, analyzing, and then disseminating that information.
I am happy to report that the NCIC 2000, as well as the
IAFIS system, are on schedule and within budget. Both of those
systems should be online by July 1999.
Indian country law enforcement initiative
We have asked for enhanced funding with respect to an
Indian country law enforcement initiative. We have found that
although crime, particularly violent crime, has decreased
around the country--25 percent decline in the murder rate, for
instance--with respect to Indian country the murder rate
unfortunately, has risen upward of 80 percent. There are fewer
than one-half as many law enforcement officers per capita in
Indian country than elsewhere in the United States. We have the
responsibility to protect about 1.4 million citizens who live
within those areas. We are having increasing difficulty
addressing those problems with the current resources. So, we
have asked for funding which will give primarily our eight
field divisions, which deal with 90 percent of the crime in
Indian Country, mostly violent crime, critical new resources.
Hate crimes
With respect to hate crimes and civil rights enforcement,
the uniform crime report for 1996 reported 11,000 hate crime
incidents, and we are concerned, as is the Congress and the
country, with the alarming increase with respect to hate
crimes. We have asked for some funding to establish an
analytical capability which will give us some ability to better
analyze and deal with the increasing number of hate crimes and,
particularly, the increase in crimes with respect to color of
law violations, violations by law enforcement officers, which
are the most serious in many regards.
We have established outreach programs and training programs
with our State and local counterparts to do the very best we
can to use our current resources to preempt and train away from
the circumstances which have traditionally led to many of these
abuses.
We have also asked for some continued improvements to the
FBI Academy firearms ranges at Quantico. Phase one, which was
funded in 1996, has greatly increased or will increase the
potential for firearms training which, as you know, is given
there not only to the FBI but to DEA and to many State and
local officers. We have asked for a continuation of that in
1999 in the amount of $10 million.
Telecommunications carrier compliance
We have also requested for 1999 $100 million as part of the
Department's telecommunications carrier compliance fund. This
is the money which was authorized for the first time in 1997--I
am sorry; appropriated in 1997, authorized in 1994--to deal
with the changes in telecommunications technology which have
made it very difficult and would ultimately make it impossible
to exercise interception orders without the switching
infrastructure changes. This is the money which goes to the
reimbursement of the carriers.
Narrowband radio communications
We have also asked for some appropriations to deal with the
narrowband radio communications problem, which is not just an
FBI problem but a problem for 700,000 police officers around
the United States. As you know, all law enforcement agencies
are required, by 2005, to change from the current 25 megahertz
frequencies to 12.5 megahertz. The narrow banding will make for
more efficient communications; also, for more interoperability.
The problem is that this migration is going to cost a
substantial amount of money. There is no separate funding
available at this time for that project, and we have asked for
$64 million within the Department of Justice narrowband
communications fund to begin what will be a 5-year effort to
give the FBI, as well as the agencies represented here the
capability and resources to make that migration and operate a
radio system which works in the 21st century.
The FBI now operates the largest civilian land-based mobile
radio system in the United States, but the other Federal
agencies and, derivatively, the State and locals, will also
need this technology change and benefits to effectuate the
change.
prepared statement
Again, let me express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
and the committee for your support of Federal law enforcement
and particularly in the areas of counterterrorism and the
crimes against children.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 1999 budget
request for the FBI.
I would like to acknowledge the strong support of the Subcommittee
for the FBI in the 1998 Justice Appropriations Act, especially with
regard to funding provided for Counterterrorism activities and our
efforts to combat child pornography on the Internet. I am also grateful
for your support in providing us with additional authorities to become
more competitive in recruiting, hiring, and retaining individuals with
critical skills.
challenges facing the fbi
Just a few short months from now, in June 1998, the FBI will
celebrate its 90th Anniversary. Since its beginning in June 1908, the
FBI has built a distinguished record of serving the American people by
effectively responding to the crime and national security challenges of
our times--the gangsters of the 1920's and early 1930's, the rise of
interstate crime, the cold war era, the unrest of the 1960's, the
emergence of international crime, and the uncertainty of the post-cold
war world. Each of these challenges required the FBI to respond to new
crime and national security problems. As I look ahead toward the
challenges that face the FBI as it approaches the turn of the century,
I am confident that our past will serve as a guide toward our future.
There are many challenges facing the FBI as it approaches the 21st
Century. Changes in national and world politics, economics, technology,
and social conditions complicate efforts to reduce crime. These are
formidable challenges, but not insurmountable. As old threats diminish
and new ones appear, the FBI must meet each challenge with a flexible,
proactive response. I would like to highlight several of the challenges
facing the FBI today and in the future.
Espionage and Intelligence Activities.--The fall of communism has
not reduced the level or amount of espionage and other serious
intelligence activity conducted against the United States. We still
face a deadly, serious foreign interest in traditional intelligence
activities. New challenges in the realm of intelligence and national
security are emerging. To meet these challenges, the FBI must be able
to counter threats posed by intelligence activities committed by non-
intelligence personnel, maintain the integrity of the Nation's critical
information and physical infrastructures, and counter technologically
sophisticated adversaries exploiting advanced technologies to commit
espionage.
Terrorist Threat.--The threat posed by both international and
domestic terrorists against Americans and United States national
interests will continue for the foreseeable future. With your help, the
FBI and the United States Government is in a better position to deal
with this threat. Despite recent successes, such as the rendition of
Mir Aimal Kasi from Pakistan and his conviction on charges of capital
murder, the conviction of Sheik Omar Rahman for conspiracy, the
convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and the conviction of
Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
the Nation must remain vigilant. Terrorism is perpetrated by
individuals with a strong commitment to the causes in which they
believe. An action in one location can bring about a reaction somewhere
else. As the United States develops a stronger investigative and
prosecutive response to terrorists, the Nation may witness more
attempts at reprisal at home and abroad.
Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The FBI views the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction as a serious and growing threat to our
national security. During 1997, the FBI initiated over 100 criminal
investigations involving nuclear, biological, and chemical threats or
incidents. Many of these threats were determined to be non-credible;
however, the number of investigations has increased three-fold over the
previous year. The ease of manufacturing or obtaining biological and
chemical agents is disturbing. Available public source material makes
our law enforcement mission a continuous challenge.
In partnership with the Department of Defense and other federal
agencies, the FBI is participating in the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic
Preparedness Program that trains local first responders to contend with
the consequences associated with an incident involving weapons of mass
destruction. With this Committee's support, we are also upgrading the
FBI's own weapons of mass destruction capabilities, including equipment
and training.
Emerging Criminal Enterprises.--Where the FBI's posture against
traditional adversaries, such as organized crime, remained stable and
predictable over a number of years, the current environment is
characterized by emerging crime issues and groups which are less clear,
more numerous, and which often transcend the FBI's traditional program
management and investigative structure. For example, Russian crime
groups are not only involved in typical organized crime activities,
such as loan sharking, extortion, and prostitution, but also in such
activities as medical fraud, tax evasion, and bank fraud. Asian
criminal enterprises are not only trafficking in illegal narcotics, but
they are also involved in the theft of computer and high-technology
components. No longer can law enforcement easily categorize the illegal
activities of organized criminal enterprises.
Encryption.--One of the most difficult challenges facing all of law
enforcement is how rapidly terrorists and criminals adopt advanced
technologies to thwart law enforcement's ability to investigate those
who wish to do harm to our Nation and its citizens. That is why
encryption is one of the most important issues confronting law
enforcement. Law enforcement remains in unanimous agreement that the
widespread use of robust non-recoverable encryption will ultimately
devastate our ability to fight crime and terrorism. Uncrackable
encryption allows, and will continue to allow with increasing
regularity, drug lords, terrorists, and even violent gangs to
communicate about their criminal intentions with impunity and to
maintain electronically stored evidence of their crimes impervious to
lawful search and seizure.
Convicted spy Aldrich Ames was told by his Soviet handlers to
encrypt computer file information that was to be passed to them. Ramzi
Yousef, convicted with others for plotting to blow up 11 United States
owned commercial airliners in the far east, used encryption to protect
files on his laptop computer. A major international drug trafficker
recently used a telephone encryption device to frustrate court-
authorized electronic surveillance. The FBI is encountering a growing
number of cases where 56 bit Data Encryption Standard (DES) and 128 bit
``Pretty Good Privacy'' encryption are being used for protection by
criminals.
As Congress continues its work this session towards a balanced
approach to the important issue of encryption, I urge you to consider
public safety and national security concerns regarding encryption
products and services manufactured for use in the United States or
imported into the United States.
Strategic Management Focus.--The 1999 budget is the first to be
submitted in compliance with the Government Performance and Results
Act. The FBI is continuing its efforts to integrate strategic planning
and budget processes through an extensive strategic management focus
under the leadership of the Deputy Director.
FBI investigative and intelligence strategies must reflect the
FBI's best judgement concerning the nature of the threat posed to the
American people and the FBI's capacity to respond at both the national
and local levels. Over the past several months, key managers
responsible for the FBI's criminal investigative and national security
programs have been developing operational, intelligence, technology,
state and local assistance, and management strategies to guide the FBI
as it enters the 21st century. At the heart of these strategies will be
the core values and strengths that have served the FBI so well over the
past 90 years. These strategies, which are still being completed, will
also identify sound approaches for responding to the challenges
associated with the dynamic nature of emerging crime problems and
national security environment.
1999 budget summary
The 1999 budget helps position the FBI along this roadmap to the
future. For 1999, the FBI is requesting $3,014,654,000 in direct budget
authority and 28,834 permanent and reimbursable positions, including
11,677 agents. To carry out several priority initiatives, including
those in the areas of counterterrorism and cybercrime, information
sharing and Indian Country law enforcement, the FBI is requesting
program increases totaling $94,004,000 in direct budget authority and
340 permanent and reimbursable positions, including 146 agents. Within
the Department of Justice General Administration programs, additional
funding is proposed to support new and continuing initiatives related
to counterterrorism, cybercrime, narrowband radio communications, and
telecommunications carrier compliance. All of these programs will
directly support FBI operations in 1999.
counterterrorism and cybercrime
The criminal exploitation and illegal electronic intrusion into
public and private sector computer networks is rapidly escalating into
a major crime problem. The national and economic security of the United
States relies extensively on a national information infrastructure
(NII) that is vulnerable to disruptive forces. These forces include
natural events, mistakes, technical failures, and malicious acts by
hackers, disgruntled employees, criminals, industrial spies, foreign
agents, and terrorists. The advent of complex computer and
communications networks has produced a tandem capability for the
potential of illegal information retrieval, disruption and/or
destruction from various sources. White-collar criminals, economic
espionage agents, organized crime members, foreign intelligence
services, and terrorist groups have all been identified as ``electronic
intruders'' with the potential to have immediate and severe
consequences for every facet of government and industry.
The United States is increasingly reliant on complex, networked
infrastructures for its national and economic security and the welfare
of its citizens. The movement of the United States towards an
information-based economy, and the rapid expansion of electronic
commerce, has greatly increased dependence upon the NII. Any protracted
loss of critical infrastructure would severely impact national security
and the national welfare. In recent years, unknown intruders have
penetrated telecommunications carriers, Internet service providers, and
other government, private and university systems. Lists of Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ's) outlining the specifics of system
vulnerabilities are widespread. ``The Unofficial Web Hack FAQ,'' ``The
Hacker FAQ,'' and ``How to Hack a Website'' are popular, accessible,
and easily downloaded from the Internet. Knowledgeable observers and
recent surveys predict that malicious acts directed against the NII
will only increase in frequency and sophistication, and will continue
to pose grave consequences and potential harm.
The challenge facing the FBI today in the area of cybercrime is
building the requisite capabilities to address this rapidly growing and
evolving problem. Technology exploitation is an emerging problem which
touches virtually every area of the FBI's mission, including white-
collar crime, counterterrorism, foreign counterintelligence, violent
crime, organized crime and drugs. The FBI must act now to identify,
train, equip and deploy investigative resources to stay abreast of the
growing caseload, as well as meet its responsibilities for
infrastructure protection. We are building this capability at two
levels: through specialized and highly trained field squads; and, the
operation of a national-level center that supports field investigations
and coordinates with other federal, state and local agencies and the
private sector.
CITA Squads.--One of our strategies for establishing a cybercrime
investigative capability is the staffing of Computer Investigation and
Infrastructure Threat Assessment (CITA) squads. Currently, there are
three squads located in Washington, D.C., New York City and San
Francisco. New squads are being established this year in Chicago,
Dallas and Los Angeles.
For 1999, the FBI requires $11,607,000 and 124 positions, including
75 agents, to staff, equip, and train 6 additional CITA squads in
Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Miami, Minneapolis, and Seattle. This would
provide a total of 12 CITA squads by the end of 1999.
National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC).--In July 1996,
the FBI established the Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
Threat Assessment Center (CITAC) to support our network of field CITA
squads by providing in-house support to criminal and national security
investigations and related activities. Since its establishment, CITAC
has played critical roles in the successful resolution of several
significant criminal and national security intrusion cases. Recent case
experiences have underscored the importance of interagency
collaboration when responding to the range of threats and incidents
affecting the nation's critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, the
intentions of intruders into critical information systems is not
usually known at the outset of an event. Consequently, law enforcement
agencies, the intelligence community, and the United States military
must work together with private sector owners and operators in
determining the appropriate government response to intrusions and
attacks against the critical infrastructure.
In recognition of the broad range of the threat to critical
infrastructure, and to bring about an interagency capability to detect,
assess, and act upon threats and intrusions, the Department of Justice
and the FBI developed a plan in late 1997 to expand the scope of the
CITAC into the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) that
would provide more advanced analysis and warning, emergency support,
training, and outreach capabilities than the current CITAC. The
Attorney General has approved this plan and the CITAC is now the IPC.
As proposed, the NIPC would be jointly staffed with other participating
federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, and the private
sector. I envision the NIPC as a national resource that supports cyber
emergency response efforts and helps determine if an incident, or
series of incidents, is either a criminal or terrorist act, an effort
to collect intelligence, or, in fact, a hostile attack initiated by a
foreign power.
The NIPC concept was presented to the Administration for
consideration as it makes policy decisions regarding the findings and
recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection. These decisions are currently being weighed
by the Administration.
Within the FBI's 1999 budget request, an increase of $10,412,000
and 9 positions is requested for the operations of the NIPC at FBI
Headquarters. These additional positions will allow the FBI to expand
its present cyber and infrastructure watch and warning capability. This
funding will also be used to develop a comprehensive and secure
indication and warning system, acquire equipment for the new field
squads, provide training programs and expand communications and sharing
of investigative techniques and detection tools.
Under the Counterterrorism Fund, $33,603,000 is requested for
implementing Administration policies adopted to address the findings
and recommendations of the President's Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection. This funding could be used to support the
expanded roles and responsibilities proposed for the NIPC.
State and Local Preparedness.--As I indicated earlier, the FBI
continues to work closely with the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies to train State and local communities for contending
with the consequences of weapons of mass destruction. For 1998, this
Committee was instrumental in providing funding under the Attorney
General's Counterterrorism Fund for first responder training and to
allow States and localities to acquire basic personnel protective gear
and detection, decontamination, and communications equipment that is
necessary for responding to terrorist incidents involving chemical or
biological agents or nuclear materials. We are working with the Office
of Justice Programs to set up the framework for a grant program to make
these equipment funds available to States and other appropriate local
units of government.
The President's 1999 budget request for the Counterterrorism Fund
includes $16,000,000 to continue this multiyear effort to improve State
and local capabilities for incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction. I encourage the Committee to again support funding for
this important initiative.
information sharing
When I first became Director of the FBI in 1993, I set in motion
the linking of the FBI's and DEA's drug databases so that agents and
analysts from each agency could benefit from the sharing of case and
intelligence information. That effort, called Drug-X, now extends to
the Treasury Department's TEC's database. Similarly, in 1995, I
established the FBI Counterterrorism Center to facilitate the sharing
of intelligence and law enforcement information on terrorism among
federal, State, and local agencies. As I look toward the future, I
clearly see a continuing need for these and similar efforts among law
enforcement to share case and intelligence information. Yet, as I look
at where the FBI is today in terms of its own information technology
capabilities, I must admit that we are several years and many dollars
away from possessing the critical information technology infrastructure
that will allow the FBI to realize the full benefits from its own case
and intelligence information, much less be able to share that
information electronically with others.
One of the most recurring and critical needs cited by FBI managers
in their operational strategies is for improved information technology
and information systems that better serve the day-to-day case
management and intelligence processing requirements of our street
agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff.
In order to bridge the gap between current automation and case
management capabilities and the functionalities our managers believe
are critical to successfully meeting the crime problems ahead of us, we
are proposing a three-phase, multi-year Information Sharing Initiative
to build a comprehensive computing infrastructure for the FBI. Our
initial emphasis, for which $50,000,000 and 20 positions is requested
for 1999, will be on upgrading existing equipment, networks, and
software to support FBI-wide document/image management capabilities.
Key features of the first module are the ability to store all
investigative and administrative data in an electronic format and the
ability to access and share this information between FBI locations.
Communications services and capacities will be increased to permit the
transmission of all types of data and graphics. Implementation of this
capability would take approximately 18 months.
Once our baseline information technology infrastructure is
upgraded, we will focus upon improving analytical capabilities (phase
2) and providing multi-level security that would allow sharing of
information with other federal, State, and local agencies, consistent
with a need to know such information (phase 3).
Over the past several years, the Congress has generously supported
major FBI information technology investments, such as the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System and NCIC 2000. These
systems will greatly improve the exchange of information between State
and local law enforcement and ensure those vital criminal justice
information services remain effective as we enter the 21st century. I
ask your support for the first phase of the Information Sharing
Initiative so that FBI field offices around the country can benefit
from the application of information technologies which will enhance our
internal case management capabilities.
indian country law enforcement
While we can be encouraged that communities around the nation are
experiencing reduced levels of crime, that is not the case for
communities in Indian Country. For example, the murder rate nationwide
declined 20 percent between 1992 and 1996; however, murders in Indian
Country have risen 87 percent over the same period. A 1996 Indian
Health Service report found that an Indian male is three times as
likely to be murdered as a white male. Reported crime in Indian Country
is twice as likely to be violent as compared to crimes reported
elsewhere in the United States, yet there are fewer than half as many
law enforcement officers per capita in Indian Country than elsewhere in
the United States. Violent Indian gangs, many with juvenile members,
are a frightening new reality on many reservations. Drug abuse has
added to problems caused by alcohol abuse. The basic law enforcement
protection and services that we often take for granted in many of our
communities are severely inadequate for the more than 1.4 million
people who live on or adjacent to Indian reservations, allotments, and
dependent Indian communities governed by federally-recognized tribes.
The federal government has a unique responsibility for providing
for the safety of individuals living in Indian Country. For most of
Indian Country, federal law enforcement is the only protection for
victims of violent felonies. Between 1994 and 1997, 83 percent of the
crimes on Indian reservations cases opened by the FBI involved either
crimes of violence (47 percent) or the sexual or physical abuse of a
minor child (36 percent). While 31 FBI field offices have some degree
of Indian Country investigative responsibility, 90 percent of the cases
opened between 1994 and 1997 were in just 8 field divisions located in
western states.
For 1999, the FBI requests an increase of 50 positions, including
30 agents, and $4,657,000 to improve the delivery of law enforcement
services in Indian Country. These agents will be assigned to FBI
offices covering reservations and supporting task forces in Arizona,
Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. These
resources will allow us to add two more Safe Trails Task Forces and
provide task force coverage to four additional reservations. Safe
Trails Task Forces are interagency working groups that leverage the
resources of the FBI, United States Attorneys, other federal agencies,
state and local law enforcement and prosecutors, Indian Tribal police,
and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) investigators. We believe these task
forces can be as effective in Indian Country as FBI Safe Streets Task
Forces have been in communities across the nation. We will also
continue training BIA and Indian Tribal police officers to develop the
necessary basic and advanced investigative, evidence recognition and
collection, and management skills needed to perform their duties and
serve their communities.
An important facet of our commitment to improving the full range of
law enforcement services in Indian Country is victim/witness services.
We are requesting an increase of $3,352,000 to hire 31 full-time
victim/witness coordinators who will be assigned to key FBI resident
agencies in Indian Country. These coordinators will work closely with
FBI Agents and Safe Trails Task Force participants responding to and
investigating crimes committed in Indian Country.
hate crimes and civil rights enforcement
The consensus among law enforcement professionals, academicians,
and community groups is that the hate crime problem is far more
pervasive than currently recognized. The most recent Uniform Crime
Report for 1996 reported nearly 11,000 hate crime incidents. These
crimes involved murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape,
aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and
destruction, damage or vandalism of property. Participation among
reporting law enforcement agencies is increasing--1996 data represents
agencies covering approximately 86 percent of the Nation's population.
Regrettably, law enforcement analysts recognize that further work is
needed before a clear and reliable picture of the number of hate crimes
in the United States is available.
For 1999, we are requesting an increase of 3 positions (1 agent)
and $196,000 to enhance the civil rights analytical capability at FBI
Headquarters. These individuals will research and analyze civil rights
and police misconduct cases to identify their causes, trends, and
develop possible solutions to prevent further incidents.
As the lead investigative agency for criminal violations of federal
civil rights statutes, the FBI must be viewed by all stakeholders
involved in these types of cases, including minority communities,
special interest groups, and police agencies, as an honest, unbiased
and aggressive force in the area of civil rights. At the field level,
the FBI will be emphasizing its outreach programs to targeted audiences
in order to build cooperative partnerships that will create a climate
of trust between law enforcement and minority groups that encourages
victims to come forward. As the Attorney General indicated last week,
the FBI plans to redirect, within existing base resources, 40 agents
for Hate Crime investigations.
We are equally committed to providing training to police agencies
to raise their recognition of events and actions that will result in
civil rights violations committed under the color of law, with the goal
of preventing such acts from occurring.
fbi academy improvements and construction
Over the past several years, I have sought your help in ensuring
the FBI's infrastructure is strong and solid. Congress has responded by
supporting the construction of a new FBI Command Center, a new FBI
Laboratory facility, and other important infrastructure investments.
The 1999 budget proposes several increases for infrastructure projects
and activities at the FBI Academy, located in Quantico, Virginia.
FBI Firearms Range Project.--The existing outdoor firearms ranges
at the FBI Academy have been in use and are virtually unchanged since
the early 1950's. These ranges need modernization due to the stress
from heavy new agent, in-service, and other training demands from both
the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration. There are associated
environmental concerns resulting from the accumulation of lead in
surrounding land and the potential for ground water contamination. In
1996, Congress provided the FBI with funding for the first phase of a
firearms range modernization project. Those funds have allowed us to
acquire architectural and engineering services, begin lead abatement
efforts, and relocate and modernize three existing outdoor ranges.
For 1999, $10,000,000 is requested for the second phase of this
project which includes plans for completing the lead abatement effort
and the construction of an all-weather outdoor range and an obstacle
and combat training facility.
FBI Academy Master Plan.--An increase of $2,859,000 is requested to
acquire architectural and engineering services to update the FBI
Academy Master Plan. The plan will allow us to gather the information
required for planning necessary improvements, maintenance, and future
expansion required by existing facilities at the FBI Academy. It will
also guide us in the most effective and efficient use of available
land, space, and facilities at the complex to meet the needs of our
Critical Incident Response Group and Engineering Research Facility. To
support the activities of the FBI Academy Construction and Facilities
Management staff, a direct increase of 3 positions and $141,000 is
requested. Additionally, we are requesting 11 reimbursable support
positions to provide operations and maintenance support for the new
Justice Training Center which is expected to become operational in
1999.
telecommunications carrier compliance
I am very appreciative of the efforts of the Committees on
Appropriations to move along the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA) initiative. Preserving the ability of federal,
State, and local law enforcement to lawfully conduct electronic
surveillance continues to be one of my top priorities. For 1999,
$100,000,000 is requested in the Department's Telecommunications
Carrier Compliance Fund to reimburse telecommunications carriers and
others for eligible costs incurred in modifying equipment and
facilities to comply with the CALEA.
narrowband radio communications
The FBI operates the largest civilian land-based mobile radio
system in the United States which provides clear and encrypted radio
communications for 56 field offices and nearly 400 resident agencies.
The fixed infrastructure for this system includes base stations in each
field office and larger resident agencies, more than 12,000 mobile or
vehicular radios, over 12,000 portable or hand-held radios, and nearly
4,000 leased antenna microwave repeater and antenna sites and data
communications links. The FBI also operates specialized radio
communications systems that support national security operations, task
forces, and other activities.
By January 1, 2005, we are required to change over from the current
25 megahertz radio bandwidth technology to more spectrally efficient
12.5 megahertz bandwidth equipment. To comply with this mandate, it
will be necessary to implement an entirely new radio system. None of
the existing wideband equipment can be upgraded or retrofitted with
narrowband technology.
In order to comply with the narrowband radio communications
mandate, the FBI is proposing a five-year effort to plan, design, and
implement a single nationwide communications system that will replace
the existing nationwide and specialized systems. Within the
Department's Narrowband Communications Fund, the FBI is requesting a
total of $64,079,000, of which $60,220,000 is new funding, to begin
these processes. Additionally, direct FBI funding totaling $780,000 is
requested to hire 7 engineers and specialists to serve on the FBI
project team for the Narrowband Radio Communications project.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I would like to again express my gratitude for the
Committee's strong support and confidence in the FBI. Both you and
Senator Hollings should take pride in the leadership shown in the areas
of ensuring counterterrorism preparedness and protecting our children
from sexual predators and pedophiles. I believe your approach of
balancing targeted increases in FBI investigative resources and
capabilities in select areas with an emphasis on training for State and
local law enforcement, encourages partnerships and cooperation that are
the keys to an effective response to crime. I know that with your
continued support, the FBI can build upon its successes and serve the
American people proudly and effectively as the Nation moves into the
21st century.
This concludes my prepared remarks. At this time, I would like to
respond to any questions that you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Director, and congratulations on
the birth of your sixth child, Colin; is that correct?
Mr. Freeh. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. We will probably have to go around the table
a few times here because there are so many issues. One of the
reasons I wanted to have you all together is because there is a
lot of interchanging of responsibility here and overlap of
responsibility, and I wanted to get into that issue at some
point. So, I will limit my time to 10 minutes and then yield to
the ranking member for whatever time he wants to consume. And
then, we will go to the member from Colorado and move around
the table again.
Iraqi spying allegations
But let me start with you, Mr. Director. I noticed a fairly
disconcerting news report this morning. I think it deserves to
be aired here. What happened is that there was a report that
there was an Iraqi spy who may have penetrated, at some level,
our capability in the Mideast. I would be interested in getting
an update, to the extent that you can give it to us, as to what
happened.
Mr. Freeh. Senator, I do not have a full response at this
time. I spoke to John Lewis, who is the Assistant Director in
our National Security Division, and he has not been able to
validate that report or anything akin to that report. He is in
discussions with some of the other agencies at this point. We
have not been able to verify that, and I will certainly get you
an update as soon as I can.
[The information follows:]
Iraqi Spying Allegations
On March 5, 1998, Assistant Director John F. Lewis,
National Security Division, briefed Chairman Gregg regarding
this matter.
Chemical and biological attacks
Senator Gregg. On another subject which concerns this
committee is the potential anthrax attack in Nevada, which,
luckily, turned out not to be active anthrax. Give us your
assessment of where we stand relative to our capacity to
anticipate chemical or biological attacks against the country
and our ability to respond to those attacks.
Mr. Freeh. With respect to anticipating and preventing
those attacks, which, of course, is our first priority, it
depends really on the actors and the individuals concerned. If
it is a group into which we have some coverage by an informant
or some other means, such as undercover agents, perhaps, we can
certainly anticipate and control----
Senator Gregg. Well, of the 100 instances that they talked
about, how many of those involved groups from outside the
United States? What percentage?
Mr. Freeh. I do not think any did. I think they were all
local or domestic-derived cases except for a couple of
examples. But they all, for the most part, as I indicated,
turned out not to be credible.
The problem with the chemical and the biological agents, as
you well know, is an individual with not a great deal of
sophistication can fabricate part of the essential ingredients
for these kinds of chemicals or biological agents, and then,
with a little bit of assistance and perhaps some other
equipment, manufacture that into a much more damaging agent.
So, if it is an individual acting alone, a microbiologist
who has access to the blood of an animal that died of anthrax,
for instance, it would be very hard to anticipate, without
having someone directly placed or information which would come
to us from an informant or a codefendant, so to speak. In terms
of the larger groups, I think there is a better capacity to
anticipate them, but that would vary based on our coverage.
In terms of preparedness, we are much better prepared in
1998, as we go through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici training. We
have a laboratory unit, which we did not have. We have
protective equipment for our agents, particularly the evidence
response teams and hostage response team.
We are quickly proliferating, together with the Department
of Defense a lot of training, techniques, and equipment around
the country. I would say that my overall estimate at this point
would still be that we are not in a state of preparedness,
given the damage that one of these attacks could perform.
Senator Gregg. Well, I know that we are ramping up, and
that rampup is going to take some time. I have met with the
folks at DOD and all of the other agencies that are involved
here. I guess my question is, do you feel that we are ramping
up as quickly as we can, considering the limitations on
education and material distribution, and that it inherently has
a time lag to it? Or is there something we should be doing that
will more aggressively get the information out, get the
equipment out that is necessary?
Mr. Freeh. I think we are moving as quickly as we can,
given the resources and the number of people----
Senator Gregg. In a coordinated way.
Mr. Freeh. Yes; I believe that we are, if you look at the
training protocol between the Department of Justice and the
Department of Defense, as it is now proliferating down to the
firefighters and the rescue squads in major cities. There are
120 cities which are online to receive this training in the
next 18 months, I believe. So, it is moving very, very quickly.
But again, you have to cover literally thousands of police
departments and fire departments, and that is just the first
responder aspect of it.
Encryption agreement
Senator Gregg. I understand there may have been some
tentative agreement reached on encryption over the weekend. Are
you familiar with that?
Mr. Freeh. There is an administration initiative which will
seek to work directly with the major software and hardware
manufacturers to see if a law enforcement solution can be
achieved, and we are optimistic that this may produce some
tangible results. Certainly, we will work very hard with the
industry representatives to see what can be achieved.
Senator Gregg. Have you received a reaction from the
industry representatives to the presentation from the
administration yet?
Mr. Freeh. I have not yet, no.
Senator Gregg. But you have made this presentation; is that
correct?
Mr. Freeh. I do not know that it has been made, Senator. I
think it is in the process of being made. We have formulated a
proposal for discussion, and we are hopeful that the industry
will respond to it.
Border control
Senator Gregg. I am interested, Commissioner Meissner, on
the question of Border Patrol. Could you tell me how closely
you work with the DEA and with the FBI? How closely are the
different agencies integrated? And then, I would like to get a
comment from everybody else.
Ms. Meissner. From the standpoint of drug enforcement, of
course, the Border Patrol is the first line of response to
drugs that come across the border illegally between the ports
of entry. We also obviously work at the ports of entry
themselves with the Customs Service jointly on drug
interdiction. And then, our relationship with the FBI is to
hand over case-related information, from the standpoint of
further investigation and prosecution.
Senator Gregg. Does it work? Is there a cooperative effort?
Or are there some gaps?
Ms. Meissner. I think that we are working together better
than we have ever worked together. I think that everybody in
the Federal law enforcement community would say that the
additional resources that the Immigration Service has received
have put us in a position to be responsive and to provide this
first-line capability in ways that have been needed for a long
time, and that is working very, very well. You know, the
Attorney General has been absolutely committed to cooperation
among Federal law enforcement agencies. We all are charged with
that responsibility, and we are carrying it out.
Now, in addition to cooperation at the border, we also have
agents, investigators, assigned to joint task forces all over
the country. Some of those task forces are FBI led; others are
agency led. Some of them work at Federal-State-local
coordination efforts, gang task forces in a number of cities.
Coordination and task force participation and working proper
roles and responsibilities across agency lines is something we
take very seriously.
DEA and INS coordination
Mr. Constantine. Senator, the cooperation has been
outstanding with the Border Patrol. They set up these
checkpoints on the border, and when traffickers are moving
fairly large loads of marijuana or cocaine in between the
various border crossing points, eventually, they have to hit
these Border Patrol checkpoints. They have been remarkably
successful. The Border Patrol immediately calls the DEA office.
They proceed to the scene. There is the seizure of the
narcotics, the identification--and this is where it really gets
important--the identification of the people who are moving the
narcotics. Then, all of the written material that they have on
their person, is collected by an evidence team that goes over
everything in a postarrest seizure. The retrieval of all of the
data, then, becomes critical to these major investigations that
I talked to you about before.
So, the U.S. Customs Commissioner and the Border Patrol
entered into a memorandum of understanding, but in all honesty,
this is one case where a memorandum of understanding probably
was not needed. The relationship had been so close over a long
period of time and had been developed. This formalized a very
good relationship, and now each of the local districts of the
Border Patrol, if they wish, can co-locate in a DEA office. We
have that on numbers of occasions. Often we will have two or
three or four Border Patrol officers working right in the DEA
office to assist them with the followup and the investigation.
From our perspective in DEA, the Border patrol has been a
really important part of this whole interdiction and seizure
operation.
Ms. Meissner. And I think the statistics bear that out. The
Border Patrol seizes the largest amount of narcotics of any of
the Federal agencies, and it is obviously a result of where we
are.
Senator Gregg. I do not want to monopolize all of the time
here. I have a lot of questions I want to come back to but go
ahead.
status of Mexico
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
Mr. Constantine, on the country of Mexico, according to
your statement, things have not improved since your last
appearance. In fact, they have worsened; is that not correct?
Mr. Constantine. Well, there are some improvements since we
last came here.
Senator Hollings. Like?
Mr. Constantine. Last year, if you recall, we had a major
problem and a widespread identification of corruption in the
civilian narcotics institutions to the point where they were
totally dismantled by the Government of Mexico. We were in a
position, at DEA at that point in time, where we really could
not even share information, because we did not know who we were
sharing it with.
They have rebuilt some agencies that we now share
information with on major investigations. The enforcement
officers go through a vetting process. They are trained by a
combination of DEA and FBI personnel to become proficient as
inspectors and investigators. We see that as positive. That is
something we had not seen before.
The problem is that as of today, the traffickers in Mexico,
the major organizations, have become more powerful since last
year because of the development of methamphetamine trafficking;
their movement from merely being transporters to being actual
distributors within the United States and the tremendous amount
of violence along the border, both directed at law enforcement
officials in Mexico and increasingly at law enforcement
officers in the United States, the Border Patrol, and many of
the uniform forces.
So, it has been kind of mixed. There have been some
improvements. There are some cases being made. But the
traffickers have undoubtedly become more powerful since last
year and certainly more than they were 3 or 4 years ago.
Senator Hollings. Well, you remember your testimony last
year, whereby you said you would not trust the law enforcement
officer to receive any information that we had, nor would you
trust any in the military. Do you trust them now? Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Constantine. Now, there are certain units, yes, that we
do trust and we share information with. It is on a need-to-know
basis. We feel comfortable with that. It has worked presently.
We have not been compromised. The development of those units I
think will probably take decades to really reach fruition. But
you do not need an army to begin to develop that type of
program.
I think the real evidence of whether we will be successful
or not is when the leaders of these major organizations--who
are pretty much well known to everybody and have been indicted,
most of them, in courts in the United States--are arrested.
When you continue to dismantle those organizations like we have
done with organized crime in the United States, then, I think
we will have arrived where we can say we have been successful.
Senator Hollings. But you provide the names to the Mexican
Government, and no one is yet extradited, are they?
Mr. Constantine. No, sir; they have not been extradited.
Certification process
Senator Hollings. So, they have not cooperated. Were you
consulted again on the certification and did you approve this
certification this time?
Mr. Constantine. Well, I never get involved in saying
certify or decertify. I do not think it is part of my role. But
I am always consulted, and my opinions are always treated with
the utmost respect. I give it openly and candidly.
Senator Hollings. That is different from last year. You
said you were not consulted, or they did not give you any
respect for your opinion. You were the Rodney Dangerfield of
certification last year.
Mr. Constantine. No; I do not think I said that, sir. All
of the time that I have been here in Washington, I have always
been treated fairly and have had a chance to speak my piece on
the issues.
Senator Hollings. You do not remember discussing the
improvements you said occurred with Colombia and how you were
working more closely with them, but that they totally
disregarded your opinions regarding Mexico last year?
Mr. Constantine. No, sir; I do not remember saying anything
like that.
Senator Hollings. Well, be that as it may, that is good
news that Mexico is cooperating. But, as you indicate, you name
the names, as Martha Mitchell used to do, and they still do not
do anything about it. We do not get a single one extradited.
What kind of cooperation or deservedness of certification is
that?
Mr. Constantine. The certification decision, as I said,
Senator, ultimately rests with people who are in the State
Department. There are some issues critical to law enforcement
such as arrests, and I have said that repeatedly over the last
4 years. Then, there are extraditions to face a jury of their
peers. This is an important tool. And I think over the long
term, that will be the measure of success.
Senator Gregg. Can you get a conviction against those
people if they are extradited to the United States?
Mr. Constantine. We believe yes. They have been indicted in
grand juries throughout the United States. We have indictment
warrants and provisional arrest warrants issued. We definitely
think we could get convictions if they were tried by a jury of
their peers.
Senator Gregg. I just wanted to make that clear.
INS mission
Senator Hollings. Well, if you were to ask anyone in this
room which was the worse problem, immigration or drugs, I am
confident that 99 percent would say drugs is a bigger problem
in America than immigration. Yet, I am seeing here that we are
adding 1,000 more agents to the INS, Ms. Meissner, and Mr.
Constantine is only asking for 257. The FBI is asking for only
146.
I look at the DEA budget which is $1.1 billion, and yours
is $4.1 billion, almost four times more than DEA, $3 billion
more specifically. Now INS wants to go up by 1,000 agents, and
General McCaffrey is saying that we ought to go to 20,000
agents. In the meantime, our counterpart over on the House
side, Chairman Rogers, said we ought to abolish the INS. What
is your comment?
Ms. Meissner. The Immigration Service has been very
aggressively adding Border Patrol agents along with other
resources to support our mission. Our mission is not only
border protection; it is also implementing the immigration laws
in the interior of the country and providing a range of
adjudicative services to legal immigrants who are in this
country. We also have substantial resources at our points of
entry to inspect travelers. So, we are a multimission agency,
and it is an agency, as you know, which has been growing with
the Congress and the administration working, I think, very
cooperatively in bringing about that growth.
The Border Patrol has the mission not only of enforcing the
law where illegal immigration is concerned, but it is a very
important player in the war against drugs, and that, I think,
will be increasingly the case as we gain control where illegal
immigration is concerned. So, I think that one needs to look at
the Border Patrol as a national resource; I mean, we are
talking about borders that can be enforced where illegal
crossing is concerned but that also allow traffic and commerce
which is good for the economy of our country and good for other
countries.
Senator Hollings. I understand, but, of course, drugs are
not only at the border, as you indicate, but they are found in
our law enforcement; they are found in our grade schools. It
is, by far and away, a greater national problem, you might say.
And here we are appropriating $4 billion for immigration and
only $1 billion for drugs. It strikes me that these priorities,
perhaps, are backward. But, of course, Chairman Rogers is
saying just abolish the INS.
reorganization of INS
What is your comment about the fact that here is a
responsible individual who chairs this appropriations
subcommittee on the House side, and he says we ought to just
divide the programs between the State Department and the Labor
Department and Justice?
Ms. Meissner. Well, I think the crucial thing to understand
about the Immigration Service is that the responsibilities that
we are charged with are very interconnected responsibilities.
In order to enforce the immigration laws, both from the
standpoint of preventing illegal immigration as well as
providing services and facilitation to those people who are
coming to the country legally, our enforcement and our
adjudicative missions work together.
We have been investing an enormous amount of funding in the
capabilities of INS, particularly in its data systems and in
its technology, and that investment has been for the purposes
of building an infrastructure, building a capability for the
Government to enforce the immigration law into the coming
century.
To abandon that effort at this point by dividing the agency
up, dismantling those resources, splitting what are technology
improvements that support both of the missions of the agency
would be basically to deprive the country of a very substantial
investment that was meant to be a long-term investment.
Now, that is not to say that this is not an agency which
deserves and needs reform. We have grown enormously, and as I
said in my opening statement, we are asking the question, as I
believe it is responsible to ask, whether we are structured in
the best possible way to manage this new growth and to manage
the increased mandates that we have been given.
We believe that there are some structural changes that are
in order. We will be offering those ideas in the coming weeks,
but I do not think that splitting up the agency--nor does the
administration think that splitting up the agency--is the way
to solve the problem of effective enforcement of our
immigration laws.
Senator Hollings. Could you furnish the committee with a
written position on the Committee on Immigration Reform's
recommendation that you be abolished, please?
Ms. Meissner. We will furnish that; yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Report of the Commission on Immigration Reform
In its final report to Congress last fall, the Commission on
Immigration Reform (CIR) called for significant reform to our Nation's
immigration system. The major thrust of the CIR's proposed reform would
move many immigration functions to the Departments of State and Labor
and would consolidate all immigration enforcement into a new Federal
law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice.
In response to the CIR's recommendations, the President asked the
Domestic Policy Council (DPC) to ``evaluate carefully the [CIR]
proposal and other reform options designed to improve the executive
branch's administration of the Nation's immigration laws.'' In
conducting this review, the DPC, working closely with the Office of
Management and Budget, consulted with the Departments of Justice,
Labor, and State, CIR staff, immigration experts and advocacy groups,
and other White House offices, including the National Security Council.
This review examined organizational and restructuring options including
those formulated by the CIR and members of Congress. From this effort,
the Administration established a new framework for reform, and the
Justice Department contracted with a management consulting firm to
provide an independent assessment of structural options and assist in
making the Administration's framework ``operational.''
The Administration's Framework for Change
The DPC review process concluded that the CIR report correctly
diagnosed many of INS' longstanding problems--insufficient
accountability between field offices and headquarters, lack of
consistency, need for greater professionalism, overlapping
organizational relationships, and significant management weaknesses.
These problems have hampered the INS' ability to effectively enforce
our immigration laws both at our borders and in the interior, and
efficiently provide immigration and citizenship services. Improving the
ability of the INS to pursue these critical priorities must be the goal
of any reform plan.
After careful consideration and study, the Administration concluded
that the most effective way to achieve this goal is to implement
dramatic and fundamental reforms within the INS. The Administration's
reform plan untangles INS' overlapping and frequently confusing
organizational structure and replaces it with two clear organizational
chains of command--one for accomplishing its enforcement mission and
one for providing services. Each operation would be headed by an
Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) who would report directly to the
Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner.
The plan will eliminate the current field structure in which
regional district offices serve both enforcement and service functions
and will replace it with separate enforcement and service offices that
bring the mix of staff and skills to local service caseload and
enforcement needs. The result will be an INS organization with
strengthened accountability and improved efficiency and effectiveness.
The plan will allow each operation to focus its unique knowledge,
skills, and abilities, while also retaining the essential integration
functions needed to coordinate these operations.
Investor Immigration Visa Program
Senator Hollings. With respect to the Investor Immigration
Visa Program, this committee instituted that particular program
back in 1990, and as far as we know, it has been highly
successful. Necessarily, if you are getting an immigrant who is
going to invest $1 million and thereby use that $1 million to
leverage exports or leverage export companies over the 8-year
period, it builds up into quite an industry and quite a
business.
Now, with respect to a normal request that would go through
with the moneys and the bank arrangements all made, we find out
that there were some lawyers within your Department who thought
differently; perhaps it was not being done efficiently or
effectively. Be that as it may, the law is the law; the policy
is the policy, and Senators on all sides, in a bipartisan
fashion, wrote over 1 month ago to get a response to this
particular freezing on application processing of these
investments, with the banks, with the individuals involved,
with the money invested, so much to the point that law cases
are now being threatened all over. We got no answer from your
office.
What is the answer?
Ms. Meissner. Well, you will be getting an answer. This is
a very complex matter, as you know.
Senator Hollings. It is not so complex; it is very simple.
The program has been working. What is wrong? Can you come to
the committee and provide evidence that we are being defrauded,
or it is not run efficiently, or a bunch of incompetents have
taken over, or the Government is losing money? If it is, it has
not become complex. Lawyers in your Department have made it
complex.
Ms. Meissner. Well----
Senator Hollings. Your lawyers think they run the Congress
and that they can make the laws. Tell them to run for Congress
if they want to go ahead and change the law. But there is
nothing complex about it. We want this program to continue.
Ms. Meissner. Well, the intent of this legislation, as you
know, was to provide----
Senator Hollings. I know it very well; I wrote it.
Ms. Meissner. Exactly.
Senator Hollings. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Meissner. And we are obviously charged with carrying
out the intent of the statute.
Senator Hollings. And why the change is my question.
Ms. Meissner. We are looking at whether the investments are
actually investments and are actually producing employment as
the Congress intended.
Senator Hollings. Right.
Ms. Meissner. We do not have a final answer for you. There
are cases that are in the pipeline, as you and I discussed when
we talked about this earlier. We are very carefully assessing,
in complex investment circumstances, whether indeed these are
investment-producing and employment-producing. I think we are
about finished with that analysis, and we will be coming to you
with the results of our analysis.
Senator Hollings. But the thrust is retroactivity, and that
is once a company or individual gets things moving regarding
the investment, the Government cannot just close it down and
leave them retroactively at a loss.
Ms. Meissner. We have held some cases in abeyance, but we
are fully prepared to address them as soon as we are clear
whether the congressional intent is being met. And, as I said,
we will be coming to you about the results of that.
Senator Hollings. Well, you leave us no option other than
to rewrite the intent all over again and make sure it continues
regardless of your lawyers.
Ms. Meissner. I think the intent is very clear; the intent
is very clear. The issue is whether the investments meet the
intent.
Senator Hollings. That changes the whole program. You can
find one or two that might not meet it, and let us clean that
up. But, when you take the whole program and grind it to a
halt, and everybody hangs in abeyance; everybody has got to get
paid; the investments are there; the payments are made; the
export businesses have been promulgated and flourished and are
now in movement, and just all of a sudden, they seem to have no
sensitivity to what is going on--sensibility would be a good
word--but in any event, let us get an answer, and let us find
out where we are, because people are losing money.
Ms. Meissner. I am very cognizant of that, and we have
moved this as quickly as we possibly can. We are very close to
a conclusion, and we are very sensitive to the financial
repercussions.
status of CALEA implementation
Senator Hollings. With my time limited, Judge Freeh, what
is your situation regarding CALEA? You say it is optimistic
now. That is the first time I have heard it is optimistic. That
is good. Tell me about it.
Mr. Freeh. With respect to the CALEA, the status of it
right now is the Congress has appropriated $102 million, which
has not yet been expended. That is funding to reimburse
manufacturers as they change their switches. We are in a final
negotiation, although there is an impasse currently. There is a
dispute between the Department of Justice and the
representatives of the carriers as to what features are
mandated by the statute which you passed in 1994.
Senator Hollings. So, what is the goal? Is that the case?
Are you asking for too much or not enough?
Mr. Freeh. The Department of Justice believes the $500
million which has been authorized, $102 million of which has
been appropriated, will be sufficient to meet the needs of law
enforcement. The industry has come in at the 11th hour and said
why do you just not reimburse us for all of the switches that
are in place by October 1998? Unfortunately, that was not the
statute that you passed in 1994, and it would require hundreds
of millions of dollars more, which we do not agree to. So, if
we do not get a solution from the industry, we are going to go
to the FCC, and the Attorney General will file a petition this
month.
Senator Hollings. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
[The information follows:]
CALEA
On March 27, 1998, the Department of Justice and the FBI
filed a petition with the FCC opposing the interim standard
adopted by the telecommunications industry. The interim
standard is considered to be deficient by the law enforcement
community because law enforcement believes it fails to meet all
the capability requirements mandated by CALEA and the
underlying Federal electronic surveillance statutes. It is
hoped that the FCC will rule on the technical standard in an
expedited manner.
prepared statement of senator campbell
Senator Gregg. Senator Campbell.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to submit a statement and some questions to the
agencies for a response.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this
morning's hearing and I welcome Director Freeh, Mr.
Constantine, and Commissioner Meissner here today to discuss
their respective budgets for the 1999 fiscal year. I know we
have a lot to cover this morning, Mr. Chairman, so I will make
only a few brief comments.
The budgets that we will be discussing today are, as I see
it, among the most important in the entire federal spending
package. They represent the very essence and cornerstone of
America's effort to waging the ongoing wars against crime,
drugs, and a rising tide of illegal immigration. In my home
state of Colorado, there are a number of projects and
initiatives in each of these budgets in which I have a great
deal of interest. This year, I will be paying close attention
to the DEA's support of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA, as well as
the scourge of methamphetamines which have become a tremendous
problem in my state and across the country. I am also
interested in the efforts currently being taken to combat
international crime. As a Coloradan, I also have a great deal
of concern for the current focus of INS efforts on the interior
and the problem of illegal aliens facing Colorado law
enforcement.
Senator Campbell. I would like to use my few minutes just
to really make a few comments, because I am a very big
supporter of all three agencies. I would like to just say to
you, Louis, that I really appreciate the sensitivity to the
rising crime rate on Indian reservations. We have been dealing
with it in the Treasury Subcommittee, as you know, and on those
reservations which are close to metropolitan areas, we are
seeing a huge influx of gangs from the cities. These are Indian
kids, Indian gangs, but they have been led astray by some of
their counterparts, whether it is the Crips or the Bloods or so
on in the cities. I think that that Safe Trails Program, as
near as I can understand it, is really a step in the right
direction to try to coordinate some law enforcement and some
preventive measures, too.
I know, as you do, as all of you do, that a lot of our
crime now is related to drugs, and all law enforcement is going
to have jobs for a long time, because until we can convince
people that they do not need it, you are not going to cut down
the supply. As long as the American people demand it, it will
find ways to get across the border or be manufactured here.
I also appreciate your comments on working with local
communities about preparedness in case of attacks from
terrorists. I was in Colorado Springs just recently; had the
opportunity to visit Fort Carson, bristling with guns and M-1A1
tanks and everything you can imagine. And the same day, I went
by the Colorado Springs water filtration plant, and I could not
help but thinking if someone was a terrorist and really wanted
to hurt the people of that community, would they go to Fort
Carson, or would they go to where the water supply is? And it
is a logical answer.
I think it is really important what you are doing, that--
you know, you cannot put guards at every water supply, I guess,
but it would seem to me that that is factored in your road map
to the future.
And to Mr. Constantine, this is kind of provincial, but I
really appreciate your support for our placing a DEA agent in
Steamboat Springs, CO, and the support you have given to HIDTA,
too. We live in an area in the Rocky Mountain States that is
seeing a huge increase in the use of methamphetamines. As you
probably know, drugs take the path of least resistance, and as
we crack down in Miami or Los Angeles or the borders, we see a
bigger influx into those Midwestern States and the Rocky
Mountain States. It is complicated, too, by the fact that we
have a terrific number of illegal immigrants in Colorado. We
have over 45,000.
We have a funny situation, I guess, in Colorado. Maybe
resort communities have this all over the United States, but
there is kind of a backlash. We are being told to crack down on
these illegal immigrants, but guess who is hiring them? Local
businesses who cannot get anybody else to work. And I know that
we have tried to do that. We have tried to increase the
presence through letters we have written to you, to increase
the presence of agents in that area.
And then, we get quiet little calls. Nobody wants to sign
their name to it, but we get quiet little calls from employers
in agriculture and in the tourist industry, and they said my
gosh, if you crack down, I am going to lose all of my
employees, and I cannot make it and all that stuff. Well, they
cannot have it both ways. If you want to reduce drug
trafficking, if you want illegal immigration to be reduced, you
have to accept the responsibility of, you know, doing the right
thing and trying to hire more Americans.
So, anyway, I just want to say that I really do support
what you are doing; I know it is a budgetary process that we
have to go through. But it is a tough job, and I am reminded,
you know, a few years ago, I do not know which agency it was,
but I was flying a little plane that I own down around Casa
Grande, AZ, and when I was landing there, there were two other
planes in the pattern behind me. And I parked, and the plane
that pulled up beside me had four fishermen in it, and they had
been traveling around just above ground level down around the
border there somewhere looking for some fishing holes, and they
just barely got parked, and another plane, an agency plane--do
not know who it was; DEA or INS or who--pulled in right beside
them, and these guys jumped out with guns and got all four of
these fishermen down on the ground, and I want to tell you--it
scared the hell out of them.
But I guess they had spotted them cruising around under
radar right along the border, and they thought they were drug
trafficking. That is one of the things I might mention where it
is a tough job. I mean, these fishermen were very angry when
they collected their thoughts, but the agencies themselves,
they felt they had pretty good cause.
So, I just wanted to tell you: I certainly respect the work
all three of you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, I have been unable to come to every meeting that
you have held, but this one, I made a special effort, because I
wanted to at least state for the record what you already know,
Mr. Chairman, and that is that everybody is delighted that we
have a balanced budget. We will probably have a balanced budget
announced tomorrow by CBO, indicating that we are in balance
this year with about $5 to $8 billion and probably over the
next couple of years between $10 and $20 billion or $25
billion.
I think that those who come before us with budgets that
have significant increases should know that the total
discretionary moneys available are essentially on the program
authority, essentially a freeze. We talked about a five-tenths
percent increase, but CBO estimates that it is just about a
freeze and that the outlays are actually about $2 billion less
than a freeze in terms of what is going to be available to
spend for discretionary programs.
So, I look forward with interest as to how all of the
increases that have been proposed by the President are going to
be achieved. My own thinking is that unless we choose to
eliminate some programs in these bills and somewhere in
Government that Congress is not going to let the appropriators
spend user fees and other mandatory program savings in
appropriations. I know you are terribly concerned about what is
the definition of each of these things, because obviously,
there are user fees in every bill, and the President proposes
many more and proposes that we use them to pay for programs.
Now, having said that, I do not say this to minimize the
importance of the portion of the budget represented by the
three of you. It is, for all intents and purposes, if it is
being run effectively, it is probably one of the highest
priorities in the United States, these programs: DEA, what we
do with our border and the immigration assault taking place,
including drugs coming through, and the FBI's role with
reference to counterterrorism and the like and many other
activities.
I would like to first ask DEA, first, Director Constantine,
I want to tell you that, as I did last year, you are a welcome
addition to our very formidable leaders in crime prevention,
and from my standpoint, we are delighted to have you. The
working together between the FBI and others and your
professionalism are showing, and that is thanks to many men and
women but probably significantly to your leadership.
status of fight against Methamphetamines
You know, last year, Congress approved $11.05 million for
54 DEA agents to address the problem of methamphetamine
trafficking. Would you please give the subcommittee a brief
progress report on the use of these resources to combat that
new, growing source of drugs? While you are at it, the
administration has a $24.6 million, 223 position request,
including 100 new agents, to continue the investigation and
dismantling of the drug labs in the United States. I would like
you to tell us how that is going to be done and generally to
assess for us the spread of these kinds of laboratories, which
are, in some parts of America, including Missouri, I
understand, reaching the scourge stage.
Are we doing enough about it? Do you need any other tools?
Could you talk with us a moment about that new issue.
Mr. Constantine. It is a two-tiered problem. About 90
percent of all of the methamphetamine that is distributed and
used in the United States is controlled by organized crime.
This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.
Formerly, it was a drug used and sold by a motorcycle gang kind
of a--small laboratories, primitive operations.
We have seen, since about 1991 or 1992, very sophisticated
methamphetamine organizations, primarily operating almost
totally out of Mexico. The leadership that we have identified
is known as the Amezcua brothers. There are about three or four
of them and a whole huge, large family supporting them. They
will either smuggle into the United States manufactured
methamphetamine in the amounts of 200 or 300 pounds at a time,
or they will smuggle into the United States precursor drugs,
usually ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, which they will order up
on the international market at the tonnage amounts, usually
from Eastern European countries. It is then brokered through
countries like India or Holland and shipped to what are really
straw purchasers, very often in Mexico or Central America.
We find these organizations operating not only along the
border, but also through distribution rings in Georgia and
North Carolina and Polk County, FL; in Denver, CO, and in Salt
Lake City and Boise, ID. It is a problem that we address in
these major organized crime investigations usually in concert
with the FBI and State and local law enforcement.
Most often, those are title III court-authorized
eavesdropping investigations, which is why the encryption issue
that Director Freeh has been involved in is so critical to us.
An example was an operation that we took down that began in
Dallas. It was capable of manufacturing and delivering 300
pounds of methamphetamine at a time throughout the United
States. We arrested all of the principals from California to
Florida and seized the laboratories that were involved in those
manufacturers. Now, that is very much labor intensive because
of all of the title III work and surveillances that you have to
do.
The second problem that we think is responsible for about
10 to 20 percent of the methamphetamine in the country is in
these small laboratories that we saw in Missouri. Now, we see
them proliferating around the United States. They are
individuals who have gotten a recipe for the manufacture of
methamphetamine over the Internet. They either steal the
precursor drugs from a farmer's field or purchase it, small
amounts from legitimate sources. They set up these laboratories
in hotel rooms, in cars, and in barns. They are extremely
dangerous because of the volatility. There have been any number
of explosions or deaths in the laboratory. There is also a big
problem in the laboratory cleanup.
They care little about the safety of other people. You and
I may be staying in a hotel, and they may decide to rent a room
and set up a laboratory in that room and could set fire to the
room and certainly leave all of the hazardous waste behind.
We have seen, for example, in Missouri the number of
laboratories that we have encountered in that State go from a
number of 20 or 30 3 years ago up to almost 800, a little over
800, in that period of time. We see similar types of operations
in Arkansas and Oklahoma and California and other States, and
my sense is that these things tend to proliferate.
Senator Domenici. Let me stop you. That is a great
explanation for the committee of what is going on out there.
Do you need the added personnel requested in the
President's budget to continue your effort?
Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir; that is the bare minimum to be
able to attack, because what once was a problem for major
cities is now a problem for every small town in Iowa and in
Arkansas and Missouri. So, to get those resources to those
locations, to assist State and local law enforcement, that
amount would be critical to fulfilling the long-term operation.
Senator Domenici. Director Freeh, do you agree?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir, I do; and as the Administrator
mentioned, we work very closely on these cases, but he has made
a major initiative on this particular problem, and I think
these resources would be well used.
controlling Methamphetamine
Senator Domenici. Are we going to be able to control this,
or is it such that it is going to be almost impossible?
Mr. Constantine. Well, I think people have made significant
steps to control this drug. The Attorney General had taken it
as an issue 2 years ago and directed us to do a number of
things to improve the situation.
The answer to all of these problems, I think, is the
prevention program. I am extremely impressed with these ads
that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is putting on with
your support. I think if we sound the alarm bell long enough
and loud enough, we will reach people and stop them from using
the drug, and we can keep it from becoming the crack cocaine of
the next century, and I think we are far ahead programmatically
and philosophically than we were in the 1980's, when all of us
in law enforcement were overwhelmed by the crack cocaine thing.
So, I think it does afford us an opportunity to get ahead of
it.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I might say that the reason
I raised the question, I knew something about it. I had had
occasion to talk to Senator Bond, and he is out in these rural
towns now every weekend. He said it is something to behold in
the State of Missouri. It has absolutely gone wild in terms of
gangs as they relate to this chemical drug, and thousands of
teenagers are involved in the gangs and this new kind of drug.
He is figuring it is so bad that they do not know what can be
done about it. I think it is important that we take a look.
need for separate Immigration agency
I have two other questions. I will try to make them as
quick as I can. With reference, Ms. Meissner, in terms of your
Department and the work you do, I heard some of Senator
Hollings' thoughts and suggestions. I do not agree with those
as they pertain to whether or not we need your Department and
every single person who is there and more. Clearly, there have
been some serious management problems. You inherited some, and
there are still some, but obviously, we gave you a terrible job
when you have the American border as exposed as it is. With
poverty rampant in Mexico and drugs coming from the south, your
problem is very difficult. I hope we can continue to add
personnel, and I hope, in turn, you will continue to make them
ever more productive.
Ms. Meissner. Thank you.
INS resources in New Mexico
Senator Domenici. I have a question regarding my home
State. I do not know if I want to be specific here today, but,
you know, just because we do not have a whole lot of big cities
on that border, we seem to get shortchanged on personnel all of
the time. I would just remind you that the way the criminals
use this border is wherever it is weak, they go. If you do not
make sure that New Mexico, including a couple of its ports of
entry, a couple of its stopovers that are inland, if you do not
plug them once you plug El Paso and a couple of communities in
that direction in Texas, they are going to find this way to do
it. They are not coming across to use it all there; they are
coming across to get disseminated.
So, I would ask that you look carefully at that, and if you
could give us your best estimate of what is a fair figure for
New Mexico and what you intend to do.
Ms. Meissner. Absolutely. We have been short in New Mexico,
as you know. I think that almost everybody would agree that the
way we have put the border strategy together over the last
several years is one that makes sense over the longer term,
which is that we have attempted and very successfully built up
in the four highest corridors of illegal traffic. We are moving
very effectively in those four corridors to gain control. Our
effort now, increasingly, has to be to link those operations,
and New Mexico is a critical link in that chain.
I just checked the figures before coming to this hearing,
and it turns out that New Mexico has almost one-half of the
agents that are in the El Paso-New Mexico sector. With the
agents that you will be receiving out of this year's
deployment, we will be able to staff our checkpoints in New
Mexico more than 90 percent of the time. We will be not quite
at 100 percent, but we will be between 90 and 95 percent, and
that is absolutely critical in New Mexico, because, as you say,
people are transiting the State in order to get elsewhere.
Those highways are absolutely central to the ability of the
traffic to move, and we will be able to provide quite a strong
deterrent both where immigration and drugs are concerned out of
this year's deployment of resources in New Mexico.
First responder training
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, my last question has to do
with counterterrorism and first responder training. In 1995 or
1996, we passed a very big amendment on the DOD bill. It was
called the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment. It had $385 million a
year authorized for counterterrorism and first responder
activities.
The Department of Defense transferred, Director Freeh, $40
million of that program from DOD to you, and that $40 million
or some portion of it is what you are talking about in your
statement with reference to first responder activities. I am
hopeful that we can continue to fund the program in Defense.
Who knows, with the budget being tight, whether they will get
more money or not? But, hopefully, you can continue this work.
You know, everybody during the Iraq war, the Iraq crisis,
started asking what are we doing to protect our cities? No one
knows that we have started in a rather remarkable way, but it
is not easy. Cities do not want to hear of a terrorism attack,
much less prepare themselves for it, and the FBI is leading the
efforts to train local personnel. There is no question that it
is frightening to train a community in responding to a
biological intervention in their water system which has the
potential for killing everybody in their town, but that is the
world we live in.
Mr. Freeh. The funds have been very productive, Senator. As
you know, the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici funds go really to the first
responders, which is exactly where the rubber meets the road in
these circumstances. The Department is also establishing some
training centers, one in Alabama and one with the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. The Nunn-Lugar-Domenici
program will bring into their seminars in the next 18 months
enough first responders to at least have the first coverage.
Although as I mentioned to the chairman before, I do not think
we are anywhere near a state of total preparedness; we are
miles ahead of where we were a couple of years ago, and this
effort, if it continues, will eventually go to 120 cities in
the next 18 months, which is very critical.
Senator Domenici. So, you are telling us that you believe
that you are fully utilizing existing expertise and facilities
in the United States to meet your needs, and that we will soon
be getting some practical evidence of the dissemination of
those training programs into our cities.
Mr. Freeh. Yes; and I think we saw a little bit of that in
Las Vegas. The response out there which turned out not to be a
bona fide anthrax threat, was really a product of the
community, particularly the law enforcement and the emergency
services community, the State and local community responding in
a coordinated fashion, because they had prepared and trained
for that.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
I have questions I will submit for the record, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. I will just note that this committee is
going to hold a special hearing on March 31 on
counterterrorism, and the Attorney General will be present.
Senator Domenici. The subcommittee itself?
Senator Gregg. Right; on the issue of coordination of
counterterrorism efforts.
Senator Domenici. Good.
[The information follows:]
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness Program
The Department of Defense's (DOD) Domestic Preparedness
Program was formed under the fiscal year 1997 Defense
authorization bill (Public Law 104-201), commonly known as the
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation. The bill provides funding for
DOD to enhance the capability of Federal, state, and local
emergency responders in incidents involving nuclear,
biological, and chemical terrorism.
The Department of Defense received $39.8 million to provide
training under Nunn-Lugar-Domenici in 1998. DOD retains these
monies, but in conjunction with FBI, Environmental Protection
Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department
of Energy (DOE), and Public Health Service, provides training
and reimburses agencies for costs incurred. The Department of
Justice did not receive Nunn-Lugar-Domenici funding from
Congress.
Border Patrol in Texas
Senator Gregg. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. One year ago, I was very concerned about
what I heard about the strategy of the Border Patrol basically
starting in California and making its way very slowly to Texas.
In the meantime, Texas was being overrun by illegal drugs and
illegal aliens being imported.
I am very pleased to say that you stepped up to the line,
Ms. Meissner, and addressed our concerns, because I think you
listened. I appreciate the fact that you went out for yourself
and saw that Texas was, indeed, a sieve; 1,200 miles of border
being a sieve is a tough situation, and it makes everyone's job
in law enforcement harder.
Your response was not only to help us earmark over 600 of
the new Border Patrol agents into the Texas/New Mexico region
but also to immediately go in in August, in Operation Rio
Grande.
I want to ask you what your results show from Operation Rio
Grande, and what the commitment is to continue this kind of
targeted effort along the Texas border?
Ms. Meissner. First of all, thank you, Senator, for those
kind comments, and thank you personally for your working with
me on this and seeing it through, because I think that we have
really developed a very positive partnership on this, and I aim
to continue it.
Operation Rio Grande is here to stay. It is a permanent
operation on the border in south and west Texas in the way that
our other operations on the Southwest border are. We will
continue to amplify it with resources, obviously in this
deployment but in the resources that we are requesting for the
next fiscal year. The administration is requesting 1,000 Border
Patrol agents in fiscal year 1999, and a portion of that,
obviously, is devoted to continuing to bring Operation Rio
Grande to the point where we gain control.
Now, we are doing it step by step. Our target, first, has
been Brownsville, as you know. The results in Brownsville are
extremely favorable; and, in fact, I would like to really
provide for the record some of the commentary that we have
received in letters, in newspaper stories, and so on, because
there is no question that it is having an impact on the
community and on the life of that community that is
exceptionally positive.
There is no crime on the river anymore. The panhandlers
have left downtown. The merchants now believe that they are
able to have a much more thriving business because of the state
of life in the communities, and in the community, we are still
intercepting aliens on the outskirts but not along the river.
The violence and the banditry has disappeared.
So, we are obviously continuing that effort as we go
westward and are increasingly focusing on Laredo and Del Rio.
Deployment of the resources which are going in now in fiscal
year 1998 began in January; 670 of those agents are going to
Operation Rio Grande. We believe it will take a couple of years
to actually complete that very vast expanse of border, as you
say, but it is working, and once we are there and have
established control, we stay.
So, this is an area that is important not only for
immigration enforcement but extremely important for drug
enforcement, and the drug enforcement implications and
consequences of this are also very positive and will continue.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me say that everything I hear
in the border communities echoes exactly what you have said.
They are beginning to have confidence now that there is a
safety factor along the border in these formerly very dangerous
areas, and I am glad to hear you say that you think it will be
a 2-year project, because I hope that what you mean is that you
are going to move up to Laredo, Del Rio----
Ms. Meissner. Exactly.
Senator Hutchison. And then, into these remote areas where
the people are least able to handle the influx, and they may
need the beefing up in that out-year all the way up to El Paso.
Ms. Meissner. Yes; and I would actually say 2 to 4 years. I
mean, what we now have seen, based on our experience in
California, is that it essentially took us 3 to 4 years to take
control, but it is now a totally transformed border, and Texas
is more challenging because of the vast area.
[The information follows:]
Impact of Operation Rio Grande, on Brownsville, TX
Since Operation Rio Grande began in Brownsville, we have noticed a
steady decline in the Crime Rate. Below is how the crime rate decreased
by the month, compared to the previous year.
September--decreased by 23.98 percent.
October--decreased by 26.16 percent.
November--decreased by 11.86 percent.
December--decreased by 26.85 percent.
January--decreased by 21.57 percent.
Average decrease for the five (5) months is 22.08 percent.
The crime rate on the river itself, (River Banditry) has completely
ceased, especially on Zone 1 and 2. Beatings, theft and rape of aliens
on the riverbank are not occurring anymore.
The presence of pan-handlers (beggars, jugglers, etc.), are not
seen or reported in the downtown area anymore.
The downtown business owners are not reporting thefts or loitering
by juveniles aliens at all.
We are still apprehending groups of aliens (OTM's) in the
Brownsville area that are suspected of being smuggled, but this is not
occurring in the downtown areas, zones 1 and 2. These groups are
shifting to the outskirts of town, approximately 7 or 8 miles east or
west from the downtown area.
Other variables identified (minimal complaints from citizens on
aliens) to determine effectiveness of operations are showing that
Operation Rio Grande is doing what is was designed to do: Achieve a
positive impact on the quality of life in the City of Brownsville.
Gary, I hope this is what you are looking for. Let me know if you
need more. I may send you some more statistics coming in from
Brownsville, but this will get you started.
______
memorandum
U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
January 26, 1998.
Subject: Letters of Support, Operation Rio Grande, McAllen Sector.
To: Office of the Regional Director.
From: Office of the Border Patrol.
Please find the attached letters of support forwarded for your
information from McAllen Sector Chief Jose E. Garza. The letters were
sent to the Chief from the community leaders and citizens. The letters
are full of praise to the sector on several issues.
The issue of improving the levee road and lighting of the river
near Progreso Lakes of McAllen Sector's Harlingen station area is one
of the themes. The writing citizens and leaders remark on how
enthusiastic and responsive the Border Patrol and its' Agents have been
throughout the Rio Grande initiative.
The comments from law enforcement officials and city mayors are in
a positive vein that expresses their appreciation for the outreach
effort McAllen has made. The letters speak well of the investment made
in continued outreach and to the many diverse groups to whom the sector
has reached. This outward show of support is a good example of McAllen
Sector's adherence to the strategy and their continued perseverance to
keep focus on the operation within the community. This continued effort
has provided a valuable return to the sector and the service in that we
have had very little negative press and no substantial opposition to
``Rio Grande.''
If you require further information regarding this matter please
contact DRCPA Ronald D. Vitiello of my staff at (214) 767-7039.
David V. Aguilar,
Assistant Regional Director.
______
The Vision Company,
Weslaco, Texas, January 25, 1998.
Chief Sector Officer Joe Garza,
U.S. Border Patrol Office
McAllen, Texas.
Dear Chief Garza: Please know that, in my opinion and perception as
a resident living in the immediate borders of the Rio Grande River,
Operation Rio Grande, appears to be a great success. The flow of
illegal aliens and drastic curtailment of drug smuggling appears to
have subsided since additional personnel, vehicles, and new strategies
have been added or implemented.
Was pleased to be part of a group of various representatives from
the U.S. Water and Boundary Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Department, port chiefs of the U.S. Immigration and U.S. Customs
Services, Central Power and Light Company, and property owners to study
and discuss the different issues and possible problems of expanding
Operation Rio Grande in and around the Progreso Point of Entry
spearheaded by SBPA Adrian Zarate recently. I was pleased that
discussion centered on all aspects from different perspectives
including security, environmental, and landowners' views. The addition
of much needed lighting, weather proofing the levees, and even the
possibility of using cameras is important to augment the manpower
energies of the present personnel and equipment.
Please know that you have my wholehearted support in your
continuing implementation of Operation Rio Grande, and the addition of
innovative technology to stem these serious problems associated with
individuals attempting to ford the Rio Grande River illegally or sail
illicit drugs across.
Hope 1998 is a wonderful and fruitful year for you, your family,
and staff. You do know that you can call me at any time as you have a
friend of the U.S. Border Patrol and all efforts of Operation Rio
Grande.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Christina Fernandez,
President, The Vision Company.
______
San Pedro-Kenedy Ranch Co.,
Sarita, Texas, December 22, 1997.
Jose E. Garza,
Chief Patrol Agent, McAllen Sector,
United States Border Patrol.
Dear Chief Garza: Please accept this as a letter of appreciation
and commendation to the Kingsville Station of your command sector.
I have found the agents to be very responsive when they are called
for assistance and to be very diligent in their patrol of some very
isolated areas. I would dread to think of the additional amount of
damage and destruction by illegal aliens that property owners in this
area would suffer if not for the efforts of the Kingsville Border
Patrol.
In working with other law enforcement agencies of the areas, I
think that I can also express their appreciation for the cooperation
that exists with the Border Patrol.
In this large and isolated area, the Border Patrol agents are often
the first to arrive at the scene of major accidents. Their presence has
made the difference between life and death for numerous victims. Their
compassionate actions have also been responsible for saving numerous
illegal aliens that have been overcome by the heat and long distances
that they had failed to prepare for.
Again, I would like to express my appreciation for the many
positive contributions that the Kingsville Border Patrol agents make to
Sarita, Kingsville, and all the surrounding areas and for the
invaluable assistance they provide me in my capacity as ranch security.
Sincerely,
Joe Stiles,
Security.
______
Kenedy County Sheriff's Department,
Sarita, Texas, December 17, 1997.
U.S. Border Patrol,
Kingsville, Texas.
To Whom It May Concern: Please let this letter serve as a formal
appreciation for the assistance that U.S. Border Patrol Agents have
extended to the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department and the residents of
Kenedy County.
As you are aware, Kenedy County is a large County and it has been
because of the assistance of Border Patrol that calls for emergency
response have been answered. Every time there is a major accident,
Border Patrol is the first to respond and arrive at the scene at all
hours to assist and give medical attention to the injured victims until
Sheriff deputies and EMS units arrive. In addition, Border Patrol has
always assisted in the search of reported dead bodies in the Kenedy
Ranch as well as reported missing or sick illegal immigrants.
This County is extremely appreciative for the considerable
assistance that has been provided to us by U.S. Border Patrol. This
department, as well as all travelers passing through our County, can
never repay Border Patrol for their dedicated service. Our hats off to
all agents for a job well done.
May you all have the best holiday season and many well wishes for
the upcoming new year.
Respectfully,
Rafael M. Cuellar, Jr.
Sheriff.
______
Spohn Kleberg Memorial Hospital,
December 22, 1997.
Jose E. Garza,
Chief Patrol Agent, McAllen Sector,
United States Border Patrol.
Dear Chief Garza: It is with great pleasure that I reaffirm and
commend the Kingsville Border Patrol agents for their continuing
efforts to not only contain illegal drug trafficking, but also their
commitment to the community in which they work. The Kingsville Border
Patrol agents are very concerned with the well-being of the aliens and
often bring these individuals to our hospital for treatment if
necessary. The core values of Spohn Health System include
responsiveness to need as well as dignity of person. We believe, as
custodian's of God's people when we're judged upon that day, the only
things we get to keep are those we gave away. The Kingsville Border
Patrol agents practice this belief daily by assisting in the aid of the
sick and injured aliens.
Additionally, the Kingsville Border Patrol agents demonstrate their
commitment to the community by donating toys to the children on our
Pediatric Unit during the Christmas season. You may even see one of the
agents impersonating the jolly man himself.
Spohn Kleberg Memorial Hospital is pleased to have the Kingsville
Border Patrol agents working for Kingsville and the surrounding
communities Spohn Health System serves.
Sincerely yours,
Donna Upchurch, RN,
Associate Administrator.
______
Progreso Lakes, Texas, December 9, 1997.
Joe Garza,
Chief Patrol Agent,
McAllen, Texas.
Dear Chief Garza: This letter is reference the proposed lighting
and caliche road construction project near the Progreso Lakes levee
area. Supervisor Adrian Zarate met with me and my husband on Friday,
November 28, 1997, to explain ``Operation Rio Grande'' to us. We
strongly feel this is a very worthwhile endeavor that would surely help
secure our homes here in Progreso Lakes.
Adrian explained he had met with the farmers owning land in the
area, representatives from Fish and Wildlife, Water and Boundary,
Bridge Owner and Custom and Immigration heads from the Progreso Port of
Entry. He took this group of people to the areas that would be affected
by ``Operation Rio Grande'' so as to address any concerns they may have
on this project. The meetings were very productive and in the end all
were in agreement with the proposal.
On December 5, 1997, Adrian worked a sixteen hour day in order to
make himself available to all the citizens of Progreso Lakes. Enclosed
are the names from all the families supporting ``Operation Rio
Grande''. Adrian told us that you had worked very hard in making
``Operation Rio Grande'' a reality for all the citizens of the Rio
Grande Valley and for this we would all like to say how fortunate we
are in having you as the head of the Border Patrol.
Sincerely,
Beverly and Joseph Meyers.
Families from Progreso Lakes who support ``Operation Rio Grande'':
Henrietta Escalon, Raul Galvan, Benito Arambula, Pedro Escalon,
Flora Galvan, Eliazar Galvan, Manuel Galvan, Servando Galvan, Santiago
Galvan, Jr., Arturo Galvan, Eleno Maldonado, Michael Guerrier, Manuel
Oviedo, Nere Galvan, Gerald Baker, Ted Sunderland, Woodie Cellum,
Harold Seiver, George Pults, James Hunt, John Whitfield, A.C. Fuller,
Randy Winston, Lloyd Heggen, Judith German, Bill Swinnea, Martin David,
Johnny Guin, Benton Beckwith, Tomas Cuellar, Arturo C. Cuellar, Jr.,
Arturo C. Cuellar, Sr., Burton Villarreal, Robert Gonzalez, Jimmy
Payne, Virginia Dwyer, Tim Reid, Butch Emery, Chester Pflugard, Alex
Young, Edwin C. Farrell, Rene Luna, Robert Perales, Bill Davis, Michael
Zink, John Gonzales, Jane Gonzales, Roland Ramirez, Sigfriedo Flores,
Clay Flores, Leroy Riemenschneider, L.T. Moss, Ignacio Garcia, Connie
Lincoln, Norman Maxwell, Harold Cain, Don Fletcher, William Cain,
Donald Riemenschneider, John Trainor Evans, Dorothy Egleston, James
Thomas, Raul Mendez, Pedro Trevino.
______
City of Progreso Lakes,
Progreso Lakes, Texas, December 16, 1997.
Chief Joe Garza,
United States Border Patrol,
McAllen, Texas.
Dear Chief Garza: We have recently been in contact with Supervisor
Adrian Zarate with regard to the Border Patrol coverage in and around
the area of the Progreso International Bridge. As you know, this bridge
is situated in our city and therefore is of more than casual interest
to our citizens. It is our yards through which illegal traffic flows.
Since the inception of Operation Rio Grande we have seen a marked
decrease in illegal traffic. We credit the added vigilance as the
reason for this dramatic decline. At the same time we will not be
lulled into a false sense of security, this is an ongoing battle and as
such requires continual monitoring. We stand ready to support our
Border Patrol.
Supervisor Zarate has impressed us with his enthusiasm for his
proposal. He has researched the project in a manner that takes into
consideration the impact this operation would have on the citizens and
their environment, without compromising the safety of his agents. He
has consulted with biologists, farmers, businessmen and local citizens
and requested input from those who would be immediately effected.
As you well know, one of the integral components of this operation
is the addition of caliche to the levy in the immediate vicinity of the
Bridge. Having driven on these levees, I can assure you that in
inclement weather they are impassable. In regard to lighting the
levees, some residents have reservations about the unforeseeable
effects on crops, insects, and wildlife as well as light pollution, but
weighing these factors against the safety of agents and citizens alike
solidifies our support.
While Progreso Lakes was incorporated in 1979, it has been home to
many of our citizens for several decades. We hold special concern for
the safety of our elderly and our children who, each in their own way,
seem most vulnerable. Over the years we have seen the complexion of
illegal foot traffic change from the lone alien looking for work who
would timidly approach you with queries such as ``which way is north?''
or ``which way to Chicago?'' to a more threatening and dangerous
traffic that has no regard for person or property.
We on the front-lines of this nations war on drugs are glad that
the U.S. Border Patrol has recognized our plight and we support the
measures it is taking to implement this project to the fullest.
Thanking you for your time and attention to our situation, I am
Very truly yours,
Karen Evans,
Mayor, Progreso Lakes, Texas.
______
B&P Bridge Company,
Progreso, Texas, December 1, 1997.
Joe Garza,
Chief Patrol Agent,
McAllen, TX.
Dear Mr. Garza: I have recently met with Mr. Robert Vargas, Port
Director of Progreso International Bridge, Adrian Zarate, U.S. Border
Patrol, along with representatives of U.S. International Water Boundary
Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Central Power and
Light. It was a unanimous agreement of all the parties that this
section of the river must be lighted to enhance Border Patrol efforts
to stem the flow of illegal aliens.
I totally support the lighting of this section of the border and
because the lights will be visible from Mexico, this will discourage
persons from attempting to cross the river.
Since Border Patrol began the current operations, we have not had
any vehicles stolen or broken into in our parking lots.
Sincerely,
Sam R. Sparks.
______
City of Progreso, December 15, 1997.
Joe Garza,
Chief Patrol Agent,
McAllen, Texas.
Dear Chief Garza: On or about December 16, 1997 Supervisor Adrian
Zarate explain to me his project, ``Operation Rio Grande''. Mr. Zarate
stated that said project was composed of lighting and cliche road
construction on the levee of the Rio Grande River which are South of
the City of Progreso.
In order for me to make a need assessment for the project, Mr.
Zarate gave me a tour of the area. At which time, I saw the composition
of the levee and that it was not weather proof which makes it hard to
travel during raining weather. The terrain with all the brush and
darkness is an invitation for crossing that sector of the Rio Grande
River which in turn would be lighted. Thus, such project would deter
illegal crossing and at the same time reduce crime in our City.
With this in mind, may this correspondence serve as a letter of
support for the proposed project as reference above.
Sincerely,
Arturo Valdez,
Mayor, City of Progreso.
______
November 29, 1997.
James M. Fernandez,
Progreso, Texas.
Chief Joe Garza,
U.S. Border Patrol,
Weslaco, Texas.
Dear Sir: On Wednesday, November 26, 1997 we attended a meeting at
the Progreso Intl. bridge regarding the proposed lighting and weather-
proofing of the levee east and west of the port of entry. This informal
meeting was conducted by your representative, Adrian Zarate who
presented us with details of the proposed project.
We are farmers and/or land owners along the proposed East 2.25 mile
section of the levee and were asked to attend this meeting so as to get
answers to any concerns we may have resulting from the proposed
project. The laying of caliche on the levee did not give us any
problems at all. This would benefit us greatly at times of wet weather
giving us all-weather access to at least our property boundaries along
the levee.
Of concern to some of us was the actual placement of the utility
poles to be used. It was explained to us by a CPL representative that
the poles would be placed along the lower north side of the levee,
within the IBWC right of way, and out of the way of any access by any
of our farm equipment in adjacent fields. We asked about the type of
lighting and how far into the fields on the south side the lighting
would cover. We were told that the range of the lights would be from
150 to 180 feet but that the lights would be aimed toward the east and
west and not directly south. We were told that this was to meet
concerns of wildlife agencies, who were also at the meeting, and also
to get the maximum effect with the least number of lights.
Concern over the possibility of increased insect activity resulting
from the lighting was discussed. Light draws insects at night, both
harmful and beneficial, and we all grow insect sensitive crops along
the proposed project. From some experience by a few of us with crops
growing near lighting in other areas and from what little information
from entomologists and others we could get, the insect concern would
probably be slight.
Access on the levee was also a concern. With the caliche on the
levee there will be a possibility of increased auto traffic by those
who don't have any business there. We have gates controlling our north/
south access roads. We were assured that only land owners and operators
and their representatives would be allowed access on the levee. The
IBWC will upgrade their ``Not For Public Use'' signs and the patrols on
the levee are or will be authorized to enforce this access. We were
very satisfied with this controlled access.
Besides the caliche we will be getting a great benefit from this
proposed project--security. It is frightening and dangerous to try to
do any farm work such as irrigating at night, but we have to do it.
Once the project is completed and operational and the alien and drug
traffic is curtailed to the extent possible, not only will it be safer
to check our farming operations at night along the levee, but also the
safety and reduced alien traffic north of the levee will carry over.
This proposed project is not a ``rush job''. All concerns;
landowners', farmers', wildlife, and immigration are being addressed.
We believe it will be a good project as long as these concerns continue
to be addressed and because of this we support you in this endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
James M. Fernandez,
Art Beckwith,
O.D. Emery,
Marvin Fuller,
Tim Reid.
______
Hidalgo County Sheriff's Department,
December 2, 1997.
U.S. Border Patrol Chief Joe Garza,
Agent In Charge,
McAllen, Texas.
Dear Chief Garza: I would like to say that I totally support and
appreciate the proposed project of lighting the Project Sector and also
adding caliche on the road leading to the levee in the Progreso Lakes
area. Not only will this be of benefit to the residents, but will also
help our Deputies when patrolling those areas.
I strongly feel that the lighting will eliminate a lot of the
illegal crossing which occurs in that area, thus cutting down on the
crime.
Sincerely,
Enrique ``Henry'' Escalon,
Hidalgo County Sheriff.
[Clerk's note.--The attached newspaper articles are being retained
in the subcommittee's files.]
Senator Hutchison. I appreciate that we are now getting the
attention, because it is more of a challenge. There is no
question when you have these vast open spaces. But I appreciate
the team that you have put together and the people who are
living with it day in and day out are also very optimistic.
Mexican Government cooperation
I would like to turn to you, Mr. Constantine, for two
issues, one of which is one that you have already addressed, I
understand, and that is the certification process with Mexico.
I am paraphrasing, and feel free to correct if I have a
misimpression, but from what I have read that you have said in
the newspapers and perhaps what you said today, you think that
the progress has been minimal from Mexico. And I would like to
ask you if you think that this is a sorting out time, or do you
think that the higher levels of the Mexican Government are not
trying to cooperate with the United States in the drug fighting
efforts?
Mr. Constantine. Yes; what I said originally was that I try
to avoid getting involved in the certification decision
discussion. What I try to do is, as a career police officer,
analyze what is the crime problem. What is the impact on the
citizens of the United States? What you have is these very
powerful criminal organizations with the command and control in
Mexico who send into the United States--it is not just along
the border; but it is New York; it is Chicago; it is Milwaukee,
and it is Salt Lake City--their operatives to carry out drug
trafficking.
And last year, when we met, this was a very, very difficult
situation, because all of the civilian law enforcement agencies
in Mexico had been totally dismantled, and there was nobody
with whom we could legitimately share information. What I have
said here today, and I said in previous testimony last week,
there have been some improvements in that in which there are
specially selected units that have been selected by the
Government of Mexico and have been put through a very vigorous
background process. They have been trained by the FBI and the
DEA.
Now, they are the beginning, and it is a small beginning,
but you have to start some place, and this does take a fairly
long period of time.
Senator Hutchison. Does that indicate to you that there is
an effort on the part of the people at the higher levels of the
Mexican Government to address this issue?
Mr. Constantine. The people that I meet with, Senator, I
think honestly want to improve the situation. The problem is
the infrastructure for law enforcement has been so badly
damaged by corruption that rebuilding is very, very difficult.
And simultaneously, while that is happening, the trafficking
organizations out of Mexico have become much more dangerous to
citizens of the United States than they were 5 years ago and
much more dangerous. If you look at Juarez, Mexico since the
death of Carillo Fuentes on July 5 of last year, there have
been 50 people murdered in drug-related killings in that city,
one-sixth of them in one restaurant. It was an upscale
restaurant, the Max Finn restaurant, where they just walked in
and sprayed the whole crowd with automatic weapons fire.
There have been numbers of doctors who have been
assassinated; numbers of police officers and prosecutors. So,
you are in a situation right now where there is a beginning
attempt to improve the law enforcement structure. But it is a
raid against this very powerful enemy, and that is how I assess
it and look at it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, my dilemma is that I do have to
decide on the issue of certification, and I have to decide if
it is better to work in a cooperative spirit with Mexico and
try to give every indication that this is a joint effort or
whether we slam the door in their face and have harsh rhetoric
and turn them into, if not enemies, certainly adversaries. And
I have taken the former approach: that we should work with them
in a spirit of cooperation, understanding that it is very
difficult, and perhaps progress is slower than we thought.
So, I think it is important as we are looking at the issue
is are they trying? And is there a commitment at the highest
level? And that is how I am looking at this. The President has
said that he is going to certify that the effort is there, and
I think that we need to, (a) go forward without the harsh
rhetoric that would perhaps lessen cooperation; but, (b) I
think we need to look at another method of measure rather than
the hammer approach, and I am working with others in the
Senate, hopefully, for an alternative to this either
certification or decertification, black and white approach and
seeing if there is not something which would bring in law
enforcement officials, of which the three of you would be
important, into a kind of high level group along with the drug
czar that would start setting standards and goals and reporting
on those but without the decertification that has such, I
think, debilitating effects on our relationship.
So, I would ask you, even though you have tried to avoid
the issue, if you do not think that cooperation will get us
more in the long run than confrontation?
Mr. Constantine. Well, obviously, you know, my whole role
in life has been cooperating with other law enforcement
agencies to try to achieve a result, and I have avoided
confrontation everywhere. This is always a difficult time for
me in this city, because I lay out what I see as a police
official, and I deal with facts and try to stay out of any
types of policy or political issues that are beyond my
capacity. I think eventually, the ultimate test of how
successful we are and how successful the programs are will be
in the cooperation of identifying the leadership of all of
these organizations in Mexico. Most of them have been indicted
in courts in the United States for substantial felony crimes
that have impacted citizens in the United States, and when they
are arrested and brought to justice and, hopefully, before a
jury of their peers that they have injured that then, I think
we can say that it has been successful.
And I leave for others the responsibility of making the
evaluation of what political process or what policy we should
have as a Government. I will always tell elected officials in
this country the truth as I see it as candidly and as clearly
as I possibly can, and then let other people make that
decision.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I understand that you are
reluctant, but it makes it very difficult for us with the
process we have, and I hope that we can change it and move
toward setting goals of extradition of those people. That would
certainly be high on the list, and I want to work to do that.
raid on Pharmacies
Let me turn to one more local issue to which I would like
your response, and that is recently, the DEA raided 25 local
pharmacies in a rather small town in Texas and followed up with
letters requesting up to $400,000 in fines per pharmacy for
what appeared to be paperwork violations. I would like to know
what the dollar amount is in the proposed fines, and what is
the DEA going to do? I mean, is this going to be a pattern? Or
is there going to be some ability in the DEA to judge what are
paperwork violations, and if there is a pharmacy that is
trafficking illegal drugs, clamp down, but if it is a pharmacy
that has sloppy paperwork, is there another approach that could
be taken that would not shut down the pharmacy?
Mr. Constantine. Yes; Senator, these are what we call
diversion investigations. Part of the responsibility of DEA is
a regulatory function. In this particular case, it was brought
to our attention that there were a number of drug stores of
substantial national corporations with a reputation for
professionalism and cooperation with us in many ways. They did
have some violations where the paperwork was not as it should
be.
There were letters sent to them from an assistant U.S.
attorney indicating that they had violated certain laws and
certain regulatory acts and that the fine per each act was, I
believe, potentially $25,000 per incident. I am now
paraphrasing this--in an interest of maybe saving everybody
money and time, if they would come in and in essence plead
guilty to this, the matter could be resolved. If they did not,
then, there would be a more extensive look at their records.
I thought this was Government acting inappropriately. We
got a hold of our SAC, Julio Mercado and he worked
cooperatively with the U.S. attorney, Mr. Paul Coggins. They
went to that community and, in essence, apologized to all of
the individuals involved for the letter, for the strategy, and
for the policy.
I cannot tell you today where they are at in the regulatory
answer to it. However, it was our opinion in DEA that that
letter and that approach in Wichita Falls was totally
inappropriate, and we have told all of our SAC's not to use
that type of approach again. That does not exculpate people who
may have committed violations of the law or violations of
policy. There are procedures to handle that. But this was, I
thought, a threatening letter, a dunning letter that was not
something I was comfortable with in my experience in law
enforcement.
And I think we have repaired the damage in that community,
for those individuals and those major corporations as well as
small-town drug stores. I think we have recognized what went
wrong there and have tried to straighten it out.
Senator Hutchison. So, you will have some sort of----
Mr. Constantine. National policy, yes.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. A national policy.
Mr. Constantine. Yes.
Senator Hutchison. Where there would be warnings or a
differentiation between a real violator and a minor paperwork
violation.
Mr. Constantine. The law is set out--and I am not an expert
on it--in the regulations of the Controlled Substances Act.
Businesses have to follow certain procedures that are published
as rules, and everybody knows what they are. I have always
found that discretion was important. As a uniformed trooper on
the road, you did not write a traffic ticket to everybody who
jaywalked. At the same point in time, if there was someone who
was speeding or acting recklessly or a drunken driver, you
enforce that vigorously. It is called discretion in law
enforcement, and you try to teach it. There cannot be any
template, I do not think, to arrest everybody or to let
everybody go. You have to weigh in all of the implications of
the violation and then determine----
Senator Hutchison. You said there will be a national----
Mr. Constantine. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. [continuing]. Policy and training.
Mr. Constantine. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
INS fingerprint submissions to FBI
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
Just a couple of questions. Where do we stand on the
fingerprint relationship between the INS and the FBI, which was
one of the major problems that created the huge amount of
people being approved for citizenship who should not have been
approved?
Ms. Meissner. Well, we have worked intensively on this
issue, both within INS and between INS and the FBI. We have
entirely revamped the fingerprint procedure between the two
agencies. The FBI now answers our fingerprint requests 100
percent of the time; in other words, for every fingerprint that
we submit, we wait until we have a response from the FBI. The
FBI's response time is very favorable; they are turning them
around very quickly, because we have worked out a situation
between the two of us where we are submitting the fingerprints
increasingly through an electronic technology.
We now barcode all of the fingerprints so there is no
chance of matching a fingerprint to a different application
than the one that it belongs to. We have put into place a
network of fingerprint centers. We call them application
support centers. They will be fully operational later this
month. They mean that you now have your fingerprints taken by
the Federal Government, supervised by the Federal Government or
by a local law enforcement agency; no private entities are any
longer taking fingerprints.
We are installing machines in all of those fingerprint
centers so that increasingly, the fingerprints will be
electronically scanned to capture them as compared with the old
ink method. That means that the rate of rejection of
fingerprints has gone down to less than 2 percent from what it
was, which was over 50 percent with the ink method. And
ultimately, we will be digitally transmitting fingerprints to
the FBI. The FBI is beginning to have that capability. The
machines that we are installing----
Senator Gregg. How many machines do you have?
Ms. Meissner. Right now, I would have to get you that
number, but they will be in all of the more than 100
fingerprint centers that we have and several machines in each,
so, we are talking about several hundred fingerprint machines.
Senator Gregg. And how many times in the process of the
application is the person fingerprinted?
Ms. Meissner. They are fingerprinted once, but that
fingerprint has a code attached to it.
Senator Gregg. How many times is it confirmed?
Ms. Meissner. It is confirmed at least three times in the
process.
[The information follows:]
INS Fingerprint Machines
INS has completed a cost benefit analysis with the help of
Booz-Allen & Hamilton that concluded that fingerprint machines
and not inked prints were the most cost effective approach for
fingerprinting. INS has purchased 100 fingerprint machines to
date using fiscal year 1997 funding. Currently there are 70
machines in use at Application Support Centers (ASC's) across
the country. At only one of the sites (Spokane, Washington), is
INS testing the electronic transfer of fingerprint minutiae
from an ASC directly to the FBI. The FBI is working with INS to
modify certain aspects of the transmittal, and INS will expand
the pilot to one or two other sites later this spring. Until
these technical questions are resolved, INS will continue to
have the fingerprint cards sent from the ASC to the appropriate
Service Center, which then sends the cards to the FBI. The FBI
responds to the originating Service Center, which forwards the
information to the appropriate district office, so that the
information is available to the adjudicators in the field.
INS is in the process of completing a second cost benefit
analysis that will help determine the type of machine and from
which vendor INS should purchase additional machines. Once that
is determined, INS will purchase 350 additional machines, using
the fiscal year 1998 funding. The time frame for this purchase
is May 1998, and INS expects to have fingerprint machines in
100 percent of the ASC's by the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Gregg. Director Freeh, how is this working, this
electronic fingerprint communication, in your opinion?
Mr. Freeh. It is working well, Senator. The INS is going to
install fingerprint scanners in the four service centers which
will allow electronic submissions. INS also will have live
scanning devices at 46 locations for electronic transmission of
criminal fingerprint data. That is really the key to this
problem.
The other aspect of it is the overall fingerprint backlog
that has fallen from where it was, unfortunately, 1 year ago,
at 2.9 million cards to be put into the process to now 700,000.
The turnaround time for civil submissions--these are not
electronic; these are the normally received ones--is down to 19
days. So, with the technology, I think we have really turned
the corner.
FBI Fingerprint Center
Senator Gregg. How is this center working, the new center,
the fingerprint center?
Mr. Freeh. The INS center?
Senator Gregg. No; your new fingerprint center.
Mr. Freeh. Very well, sir. There are 1,100 technicians who
are all on board, hired over the last year, and that is
principally why the backlog is down. And as the IAFIS system
comes online next July, the turnaround time is going to be
dramatic. It will be 24 hours for all civil and criminal cards
and 2 hours for criminal priority cases so----
Senator Gregg. It just seems to me that the whole key to
this question of having new citizens be citizens we want comes
down to being sure that we can adequately check their
background and that the person who takes the test is the person
who applied and that the person who takes the oath is the
person who applied. And so, I think that we have spent all of
this money on this fingerprint capability, and it took a while
to get it up and running, but obviously, you are going to take
advantage of it. But I do encourage you--obviously, I do not
have to encourage you; you are doing it--to continue to
aggressively pursue utilization of all of this new equipment,
new capability and to make sure that we aggressively check
people's backgrounds through the use of this new technology,
which I am sure you are going to do.
Ms. Meissner. I can certainly assure you that we are doing
that.
Senator Gregg. Do you have some additional questions?
Senator Domenici. Yes; I do.
Senator Gregg. Why do you not go ahead?
Senator Domenici. Is this too late for you?
Senator Gregg. No; go ahead; I have got a couple more, but
shoot.
use of INS funds for new Technology
Senator Domenici. Well, I want to ask the same questions of
you, Commissioner, that I asked of Mr. Freeh with reference to
new technology. Could you provide the subcommittee with a
breakdown of the funding that has been utilized by INS to
develop a core technology program producing proven results in
your Department?
Ms. Meissner. Absolutely; this has been a major element of
our budget requests for several years now. Modernization has
been a key objective. The systems that we are putting into
place are working very well. Six years in a row, we have gotten
Federal technology leadership awards, and I would be happy to
give you more detail. It is the key to the future for us.
Senator Domenici. Well, I am sure that there are some that
you do not want to put on record. In any event, in response,
would you put on the record for us what the technology
breakthroughs have been, provided they do not do harm to your
approach to law enforcement? I think it is interesting that
there are so many institutions in the United States doing
research in this area, and they all call upon us to go visit
them. They have new technologies, and sometimes, we cannot
quite figure out how our departments and agencies are going
about getting the best and finding the best. I would submit
what you tell us you are doing to a group of experts and ask
that they report, if the chairman desires, on whether the
highest and best technology is being used.
Ms. Meissner. I would be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
Technology Breakthroughs
The following technological breakthroughs have been put
into place by the INS.
The INS has developed the first open Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (AFIS), IDENT. All other known working
AFIS's use proprietary solutions which have historically locked
the user into a single vendor for the life of the system. All
the known working systems store the fingerprint data in the
vendor's proprietary format in a way that makes it unusable by
any other competing product. To consider switching vendors, the
user must be willing to throw away all the fingerprints
captured to date or be willing to run two systems in parallel
fashion. This has led to three primary vendors selling AFIS
products to Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies,
which has resulted in many incompatible systems that cannot
share fingerprints. The INS system, IDENT has demonstrated that
it can run with two or more of the previously competing
vendors' products performing matches on the same data base. The
INS' AFIS system is capable of processing images from other law
enforcement AFIS' that are capable of transmitting a copy of
the original image using the National Institute of Standards
and Technology standard or sending our images to their systems
for checks.
The INS has developed the first fully automated,
operational inspection station, the INS Passenger Accelerated
Service System (INSPASS) for inspecting arriving passengers at
major airports. This project pioneered the use of the hand
geometry biometrics in this type of application.
The INS has developed the first automated, operational
vehicle inspection port-of-entry, the Secure Electronic Network
for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI). Testing continues with
use of facial and voice recognition as a method of eventually
making SENTRI capable of operating in a fully automated
capacity.
The INS has developed the first fully automated,
unattended, remote-monitored, vehicle port-of-entry that uses
voice biometrics to identify and clear pre-enrolled persons
moving to/from the United States and Canada.
The INS has developed use of video to operate low-risk,
low-volume ports-of-entry with inspections being done from a
remote, staffed port-of-entry, thus allowing the INS and U.S.
Customs Service to keep open a port-of-entry that would
otherwise not have sufficient people to staff it 24 hours a
day.
The INS has developed significantly more secure
identification documents, including the following: a new re-
entry document that resembles a passport, but uses a new
printing process to print on a Teslin paper in color, in a way
that makes it very difficult for someone to alter the printed
page; a new INS-issued identification card for permanent
resident aliens (green card); a new INS-issued identification
card for employment; and a new Department of State-issued
identification card for Border Crossers.
The identification cards referenced above include multiple
security features resulting in what the INS Forensic Document
Laboratory calls the most secure document that they have seen
produced. In addition to the security features, this card is
introducing the first large volume use of the ``Write Once,
Read Multiple Times'' optical memory/storage on an
identification card.
The INS is using the 2D Bar Code printed on a benefit
application that stores in computer readable form all the data
on the form, thus saving the data entry costs previously
required to process the application.
The INS is using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) mapping
software and data to display operational data that enables
management to understand better what processes are working and
in what ways, plus enables them to plan better for future
activities and resource use. Arrests, sensor alarms, etc., are
being displayed on pictures captured by satellite, thus showing
activities relative to the trails that the aliens use and over
topographical maps to show the terrain.
The INS has developed semi-smart sensor monitoring systems
that utilize day/night camera configurations that will
automatically locate an alarming sensor, point, zoom, and focus
the camera to the activity area, giving the operator a live
video of the activity thus making more effective use of our
resources, e.g., officers no longer need to respond to sensor
alarms that were set off by animals, and the officers know what
to anticipate when responding to these remote sites.
The INS is using ``data mining'' software that enables its
officers to analyze data from both the INS data collections and
from outside sources, which is used to investigate suspected
persons, business, etc., resulting in the identity and the
prosecution of criminals.
The INS has developed a ``camp monitoring'' system used for
emergency operations that keeps track of persons in detention
by use of a bracelet that contains an embedded Radio Frequency
Tag. A hand-held reader is used to read the unique serial
number of the bracelet, which then performs an automatic lookup
in the data base to identify the person from the biographical
data previously captured on them.
Indian country
Senator Domenici. With reference to Indian country, Mr.
Freeh, I know that with everything you have to do as Director
of the FBI, you certainly do not need any questions today about
Indian country. Be that as it may, you do have jurisdiction, as
does the U.S. attorney's office, in the sovereign States
wherein Indian tribes or reservations lie to enforce the big 10
criminal major crimes act which is part of our national code
making Indians or Indian people responsible for those crimes to
the Federal Government. Other crimes can be made by their own
ordinance or by State law or the like, but those, you have the
sole jurisdiction over.
I will tell you this morning, one of the most disheartening
things at a breakfast of county leaders from my State, I talked
to the Navajo police chief. Now, this is not the sheriff of the
county or three counties or four within which Navajos live but
the non-Indian police chief that they have hired. He tells me
for the entire Navajo Reservation, for his work, he has the sum
total of 31 policemen.
Now, if one can imagine a reservation with about 250,000 to
325,000 people four times the size of Delaware, and you have 31
law enforcement people for your around-the-clock activities,
you know that they are in for some big problems. I wonder if
you might submit for the record any analysis that you could
come up with of new funding in the 1999 budget that is going to
be targeted toward Indian law enforcement initiatives? Could
you provide the subcommittee with an analysis of the funds that
will be redirected to this initiative from within the
Department if that is the case? Maybe you would like to talk
with us a bit about this problem if you are familiar with it.
It is a very serious one, and I understand it is
deteriorating rapidly because of lack of law enforcement, lack
of jails, lack of facilities, and, you know, it can go
unnoticed.
Mr. Freeh. Yes.
Senator Domenici. For some of us, it cannot go unnoticed.
Mr. Freeh. I would be very privileged to submit that to
you. As I mentioned in my earlier statement, we have, in the
1999 budget, a request for 30 new agents for crimes in Indian
country. We would expand from four to six the number of Safe
Trails task forces where we work with the Navajo services. We
have also asked for an additional 31 positions for victim
witness assistance specialists, full time for Indian country.
As I have mentioned, although the violent crime and
homicide rate have fallen in the country 20 percent, it is 87
percent higher in Indian country, and they have, as you noted,
one-half of the per capita policing resources. So, I will
provide you with what we already have, and as I have indicated,
we have asked for these new positions in the 1999 budget, and I
agree with you: it is a critical area of our responsibility,
and we need to beef it up.
[The information follows:]
Indian Country
While a reported crime in Indian Country is twice as likely
to be a violent crime as crime reported in the rest of the
United States, there are only half as many police officers per
capita in Indian Country. Criminal investigative services in
Indian Country are provided by the FBI, Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), Tribal Police, and/or State or county law
enforcement, exercising either exclusive or concurrent
jurisdiction, depending upon the State in which the reservation
is located or the type of crime committed. During 1997, the FBI
initiated 1,668 new investigations pertaining to crimes in
Indian Country focusing primarily on felony crimes of violence
and the physical/sexual abuse of children. The day-to-day
violence involves homicides, assaults and rapes. The crimes are
generally reactive in nature and demand that the FBI closely
coordinate its response and investigations with the BIA
Criminal Investigators and the various tribal law enforcement
officers with which it works.
The investigations of the sexual/physical abuse of children
in Indian Country are among the most sensitive cases worked by
the FBI and are priority investigative matters. Under reporting
of child sexual abuse cases is an issue the FBI is addressing.
Improved reporting rates will increase the FBI's investigative
case loads.
Just as juvenile crime has increased throughout the United
States, it has increased in Indian Country. After decades of
stable birth rates, the births in Indian Country began to rise
sharply during the 1970's. The 1990 Census reported that while
26 percent of all Americans were under the age of 18, the
percentage of the Native American population under the age of
18 was 34 percent. The incidence of juvenile crime in Indian
Country is exacerbated by chronic unemployment, low levels of
educational attainment, geographic displacement and family
disruption. Difficult social and economic conditions have
contributed to an increase in the number of gangs in Indian
Country. Gang-related violence is a new phenomenon that is
causing grave concern among Native Americans. Geography is
often a contributing factor to addressing not only this crime
problem but all of the crimes occurring in Indian Country. For
example, the Navajo Nation is an immense area of 15,971 square
miles in Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. Drive-by shootings have
increased and some homicides have been tied to gangs. FBI
Agents must sometimes travel long distances to reach crime
scenes, which can be as far as 200 miles from their offices,
and in remote areas of their territories. There are identified
gangs in Indian Country made up primarily of juveniles who
mimic criminal street gangs established in non-Indian
communities. Homicide, rape, robbery and weapons violations are
the most prevalent crimes committed by gang members.
The total enhancements requested for the Department of
Justice for the Indian Country Initiative for 1999 totals 122
positions and $157,475,000. This request includes:
INDIAN COUNTRY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positions Agt/Att Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Agents and Support.......................................... 50 30 $4,657,000
FBI Victim/Witness Specialists.................................. 31 .............. 3,352,000
AUSA's and Support.............................................. 35 26 3,466,000
Correctional Grants............................................. .............. .............. 52,000,000
Juvenile Justice Grants......................................... .............. .............. 20,000,000
Drug Testing/Treatment.......................................... .............. .............. 10,000,000
Tribal Courts................................................... .............. .............. 10,000,000
COPS............................................................ 6 .............. 54,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI.--50 positions (30 agents) and $4,657,000 to be
dedicated to Indian Country Investigations; and 31 support
positions and $3,352,000 for full time Victim/Witness
Specialists to be assigned to FBI resident agencies with
jurisdiction in Indian Country.
USA.--35 positions (26 attorneys) and $3,466,000 in support
of the violent crime programs of the offices of the United
States Attorneys with significant areas of exclusive Federal
criminal jurisdiction.
OJP/Correctional Facilities Grants.--$52,000,000 for
construction and renovation of detention facilities in Indian
Country.
OJP/Juvenile Justice Crime Control and Prevention.--
$20,000,000 to implement a new juvenile justice prevention and
intervention initiative in Indian Country.
OJP/Drug Testing/Treatment.--$10,000,000 to local units of
government and Indian tribes for the planning, implementation
and enhancement of comprehensive programs of drug testing, drug
treatment, and graduated sanctions for individuals within the
criminal justice system.
OJP/Tribal Courts.--$10,000,000 for discretionary grants to
assist tribal governments in the development, enhancement, and
continuing operation of tribal judicial systems.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).--six positions
and $54,000,000 to improve law enforcement capabilities on
Indian lands.
Senator Domenici. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, in that regard,
while I missed the presentation of the Attorney General--I
could not get here, and I am sorry about that; I should have
sent word, and maybe you would have held her for a little bit.
I wonder if I could submit a question to her with reference to
the U.S. attorney's office increased activity on Indian
reservations.
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
Senator Domenici. Or just what their level of activity is.
I understand, in New Mexico, at least, there is a recognition
that they must do more, but I wonder what it is across the
country.
Senator Gregg. No problem; give us the question, and we
will submit it.
Senator Domenici. If I give you the question, you will
submit it?
Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
Certification decision--lead role
Senator Domenici. My last question--you know, I had a whole
series of them on Mexican drug certification, but I will not
ask them. I will just ask one question, and maybe you will
choose not to answer it, but it just seems to me that when a
certification of any country, be it Colombia, which we refuse
to certify, yet, we grant them some national interest waiver;
and yet, certification is recommended for Mexico, it raises a
lot of questions.
I guess I would ask you: do you think it would bring more
credibility to the certification process if the law enforcement
agencies, say the Justice Department or the Justice Department
and the DEA were to take the lead role in certification
decisions?
Mr. Constantine. I probably would not answer that, Senator.
The Attorney General would be better to answer that for the
Justice Department than I. I have tried to avoid the whole
question of certification as a law enforcement official for
fear that it would be inappropriate; it would be perceived
incorrectly. I do not know what the Attorney General's position
would be.
Senator Domenici. OK.
Mr. Constantine. She would have to speak for herself.
Senator Domenici. I accept that answer, and I assume that
if we had her here, she would say she accepts the determination
by the President of the United States that it be the Secretary
of State; so, we will get nowhere unless we have a debate on
the floor of the Senate about it, and maybe that will happen
this year.
I assume that is the same position you would take,
Director?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. And you?
Ms. Meissner. Yes.
Indicted Mexican nationals or Americans who reside in Mexico
Senator Domenici. Could I ask, of the list of indicted
Mexican nationals or Americans who now reside in Mexico and
have been indicted in the United States by a grand jury, do you
have a list of those who have not yet been arrested and/or
tried or returned to the United States that you might give us
for the record?
Mr. Constantine. Yes; we will.
Senator Domenici. Would you coordinate so we have the full
list?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, we will.
Senator Domenici. Has there been a substantial diminution
in that list from last year, when we had similar discussions
here, or is the list about the same size?
Mr. Constantine. I think the list of the individuals whom
we have identified as leaders have been indicted in provisional
arrest warrants. Then, there have been one or two arrests of
midlevel people, and there have been extradition papers filed
on four or five, but none of the principals has been arrested,
and there have not been any extraditions yet to the United
States.
Senator Domenici. Might I just ask: do our law enforcement
people have some reasonable understanding as to where these
people are? I mean, are they findable in Mexico? Could law
enforcement find them?
Mr. Constantine. It is difficult, obviously, for us, with
only 45 people in a country that large, to be able to locate
individuals who have a whole network that they have developed
of ex-law enforcement officials for their own security, law
enforcement officials whom they have corrupted. They have
intimidated entire communities through violence. When you have
intimidation and corruption, which is the life-blood of
organized crime, honest citizens are often unwilling to come
forward for fear that they would suffer some great penalty.
Senator Domenici. Director Freeh.
Mr. Freeh. We do not have the capability, the United States
law enforcement resources, of finding fugitives or indictees in
Mexico. As to the capability of the Mexican Government, I am
not an expert on that. I know we have many leads in terms of
telephone connections and travel connections which we regularly
pass on to the Mexican authorities, and they have been
exceedingly difficult in terms of their apprehension ability.
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say,
because I am sure that sooner or later, the State Department is
going to be interested. You know, I am very sympathetic to an
ongoing cooperation between America and Mexico. You know we
live on that border--New Mexico does, Texas does, California
does. We know the problems Mexico has. I do say it is rather
difficult to go through certification last year and just beg
the participants, our State Department and the Government of
Mexico, to apprehend some indicted people who are indicted by
American grand juries. We beg them to send some of them here to
be tried and find little or no result or little or no
enthusiasm, as evidenced by action.
It does not make it easy to stand up and say, they are
doing everything they can in drug and crime prevention in
Mexico as it pertains to the United States of America. So, I do
not know where it will all come out, but that issue is going to
come up again. We would appreciate the list being as impeccable
as you can give, because every time we say there are 120,
somebody says there are only 30.
Senator Gregg. Yes; we would like to get that list. But I
think, obviously, the sensitivity of the Senators from New
Mexico and Texas and the ranking member from South Carolina is
significant on this point. You have to ask yourself--and I
recognize you are not going to comment on this, and I
appreciate that you do not want to get into this policy--but
you have to ask yourself: what is the point of this
certification exercise if you have a country that so clearly is
not cooperating in the exercise, and yet, we will not take any
action against them, because we feel it would be, from a public
policy standpoint, the wrong decision, and it would have
international ramifications which would be counterproductive.
So, why even have the certification process if we are simply
not going to use it effectively in this area? It is very
obvious we are not getting cooperation; so, why pursue a
process which we are being duplicitous by saying we are going
to certify them when clearly, they should not be certified?
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Indicted Mexican Nationals
The following is a list of known subjects believed in
Mexico who have been indicted in the United States. Some of
these subjects are under arrest or incarcerated in Mexico, due
to Mexican law enforcement efforts.
Arellano Felix, Ramon. Provisional Arrest request 10/97.
Also has drug charges in Mexico.
Caro Quintero, Rafael. Provisional Arrest requested 1/97.
Currently serving a sentence in Mexico. Also has drug charges
in Mexico.
Del Toro, Jose. Arrested on 11/21/97. U.S. Murder Charges.
Fleitas, Juan Jesus. Arrested 8/3/97 on local charges. Also
has armed robbery and murder charges in Cuba.
Gonzales Castro, Jaime. Arrested 6/97; Extradition granted
11/97. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
Guitierrez, Rosendo. Extradition granted; Appeal pending
Also has sex offense charges in Mexico.
Ladino Avila, Jaime Arturo. Arrested 5/28/97. Extradition
granted 9/4/97. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
Malherbe, Oscar. Provisional Arrest requested 5/28/97.
Arrested 3/4/97. Documents submitted 4/28. Extradition granted
but not final; Facing Mexican drug charges.
Martin, William Brian. PA requested 1/96. Extradition
granted; remanded for rehearing. U.S. Drug Charges.
Paez-Martinez, Arturo. Arrested 11/97. Extradition
documents submitted 1/8/98. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
Robles, Tirso Angel. Arrested 11/96. Extradition granted.
Appeal pending. Also has drug charges in Mexico.
Vasquez Mendoxa, Agustin. Provisional Arrest requested 7/
94. Also has murder and drug charges in Mexico.
Besides these known fugitives, there are approximately 25-
30 individuals under arrest at any given time in Mexico who
have been found extraditable or who are facing extradition
proceedings at the request of the United States. There is no
way of knowing how may defendants charges in the United States,
whether U.S. or Mexican citizens, have fled to or are residing
in Mexico.
audits of the Naturalization process
Senator Gregg. I did have a couple of additional questions.
Are you going to continue annual outside audits of the
naturalization process?
Ms. Meissner. Well, we, as you know, have been intensively
involved in a series of audits with a firm, KPMG Peat Marwick.
Senator Gregg. Right.
Ms. Meissner. We now have a series of things in place that
we believe assure the integrity of this process: the
fingerprint change that we just described; the random reviews
within the agency.
Senator Gregg. Well, are you going to continue the outside
audits?
Ms. Meissner. Right now, we do not have plans for an
outside audit, but that is because we have built in the
protections that the outside auditors were reviewing; we have
built those into the system.
Senator Gregg. I understand that.
Ms. Meissner. And into the software that supports the
system.
Senator Gregg. But I think this committee is going to want
you to continue outside audits for a couple of years to make
sure that this committee is comfortable that the systems are
working.
Ms. Meissner. Well, we would be happy to talk to you about
that, and I would be happy to describe to you more fully the
protections that are in place.
[The information follows:]
Immigration and Naturalization Service Oversight Audits
Future review of naturalization operations will be done
internally at the field level with periodic mandated reviews of
compliance with established process controls. Field offices
will be required to report review results up through the chain
of command. This is being referred to as the formal Quality
Assurance Program within INS.
INSpect reviews will continue to cover the naturalization
process.
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
may also review portions of the naturalization process as it
sees the need to do so. For example, the Inspector General is
currently reviewing implementation of the Application Support
Centers.
Title V exemption
Senator Gregg. On the issue of technology, are you finding
that the exemption we gave you has given you the capacity to
hire the types of people that you need, or do you need a
further exemption? Basically, in your opening statement, you
have outlined the fact that technology-related crimes are
becoming your fastest growing concern.
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir; we have not been able to utilize what
I said last year and would say with greater fervor this year is
a critical title V waiver in all of the specific scientific and
technical areas that are in the statute. Unfortunately, we have
not been able to implement that yet. As you know, the OMB did
not approve of the waiver. We have been directed to sit down
and negotiate with OMB with respect to the particulars of the
implementation. We are doing that now. It is going to be,
unfortunately, a few more months before we have the plan
written where we can start utilizing the authority.
Senator Gregg. But do you not find it ironic that this
administration, which claims to be a great crimefighting
administration, would be using accounting methods to stand in
the way of what is probably the most rapidly expanding area of
crime prevention?
Mr. Freeh. As I said, we need to utilize that exemption
quickly. It is very important that we take advantage of it. I
think the Congress was very prudent and forward-looking in
giving it to us, and we will work out the details as quickly as
we can.
FBI laboratory construction
Senator Gregg. And how are things going with the laboratory
construction?
Mr. Freeh. Very well, Senator. We have the final design
analysis under consideration. Dr. Kerr, as you know, the new
laboratory director, thinks that everything is online and
within the $130 million appropriation for the physical
construction. They have already started the construction on the
parking annex. This fall, they will start the actual office and
laboratory building. We have, as you know, the conference
center incorporated in the design which will give us the
ability to teach State, local, and foreign partners. So, it is
going fairly well.
FBI-DEA cross training
Senator Gregg. You and the DEA are cross training down
there?
Mr. Freeh. Yes; we have been for many years and will
continue to do so. We utilize almost all of the facilities
jointly, and the Justice Training Center, which is nearing
completion, I believe, will be a good integration of the way it
has been handled so far.
Mr. Constantine. Your thoughts are correct, Senator, and
the Director and I have talked about this again and again for
the last 4 or 5 years. There is a need for these two agencies,
both very large, both with a big responsibility to work
together, and if we do not cooperate, not a mandatory fashion
but in an actual spirit of trying to do it together, I do not
think we serve the public very well.
Senator Gregg. Well, you do all serve the public very well,
and we do very much appreciate the fact that your people put
tremendous hours in and put their lives at risk in many
instances, and this committee will continue to strongly support
your efforts, and keep up the good work.
Additional committee questions
I will have questions submitted for the record from
Senators Domenici, Campbell, Inouye, and Byrd.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
use of technology in law enforcement--ins
Question. There is no dispute that federal funding for law
enforcement agencies has dramatically increased over the past ten
years. With the increases provided in recent years, Congress has funded
significant numbers of additional personnel, but only now are the
Administration and the Congress really focusing upon the technology
that can help these law enforcement agencies do their job more
effectively. Commissioner Meissner, could you please provide the
Subcommittee with a breakdown of the funding that has been utilized by
INS to develop or procure improved technology to support the work of
our law enforcement personnel?
Answer. Following is a breakdown of the funding that has been
utilized by the INS to develop or procure improve technology to support
the work of our law enforcement personnel for fiscal years 1995 through
1998:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Inspections
Fiscal year systems systems Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ $57,559,800 $16,409,000 $73,968,800
1996............................................................ 50,926,600 23,275,800 74,202,400
1997............................................................ 92,016,100 21,604,700 113,620,800
1998............................................................ 43,333,000 36,864,000 80,197,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 243,835,500 98,153,500 341,989,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What types of advanced technology do these agencies use
in fighting crime, drugs, and illegal immigration?
Answer. The following advanced technology is used in fighting
crime, drugs, and illegal immigration:
Enforcement
Night Vision--includes long-range scopes that are both portable
(mounted on a vehicle) and fixed, (e.g., mounted on a pole, building,
etc.). The Integrated Surveillance Information System (ISIS) project
incorporates the night vision, day vision, and sensor assets into a
semi-intelligent monitoring system that is managed by the Integrated
Computer-Aided Detection (ICAD) and mapping system, which allows the
agent to see the activity on both a topographical map and a satellite
map.
Day Vision--includes permanently-mounted camera systems that are
used remotely to monitor high-risk or high-volume areas of the border.
Many of the new systems we are now installing include a combination of
a night-vision camera along with a normal daylight camera, which gives
a more effective 24-hour-a-day coverage.
Sensors--that detect movement in a given area, thus permitting the
unattended monitoring of certain areas without leaving the border
uncovered.
Computer software
ENFORCE--the INS' modern enforcement case management system that
will become the integrated enforcement system and tool for the support
and management of all enforcement activities, from identification of a
lead through investigation, arrest, booking, detention, to disposition
(e.g., deportation, prosecution). ENFORCE will manage bed space,
arrange for transportation to/from facilities, track persons while in
custody, and analyze data from INS data collections along with data
from external sources helping identify subjects, cases, etc.
IDENT--the INS' positive identification system which is operating
across the Southwest Border and at other selected INS sites around the
country. IDENT permits the INS officer to identify the subject
positively for the first time, since many of the people INS arrests
either have fraudulent documentation with false names or no
documentation.
ICAD--the INS' automated system to track sensor alerts, perform
path analysis, and to process dispatch tickets. Additionally, ICAD
tracks an officer while dispatched, alerting the radio operator when
the agent does not call in a prescribed time, enhancing officer safety.
Plus, today, ICAD is forming the key link that ties together the
technology that forms the INS ISIS project. The ISIS links the INS
sensors and its night/day vision technology together to form a semi-
smart system that permits more efficient use of the INS resources.
The INS systems ICAD, IDENT, and ENFORCE are starting to produce
vital management planning information. Information produced by these
systems has aided field supervisors in staffing shifts, as well as in
predicting trends in criminal activities that allows INS to pro-
actively distribute resources for maximum effect. The information has
been used to identify patterns in apprehensions that have led to the
identity of smugglers and the smuggling organizers. Coupling the data
together from across the Southwest Border has enabled INS to better
evaluate the effectiveness and productivity of its enforcement
activities.
Radios--both new ones for new officers and replacement ones as INS
converts its former antiquated radio system to a state-of-the-art voice
encrypted radio system that enhances officer safety, while providing
compatibility with other federal law enforcement agencies. The radio
program also moves INS to a narrowband system, which is necessary to
make INS compatible with the administrative mandate to move to a
narrowband system to free up band width for commercial use.
Inspections
We are using several forms of leading-edge technology that are
permitting us to automate various phases of the inspection process for
the low-risk segment of the traveling public, thus freeing the
inspectors time to focus on the unknown and higher-risk travelers. The
following projects highlight those initiatives that support automating
various aspects of the inspection process:
INSPASS--the INS system to automatically conduct an inspection of
enrolled low-risk travelers (airports and pedestrian lanes) and speeds
up the inspection process for all involved.
SENTRI--the INS system used to process vehicles that are pre-
enrolled in the system speeding up border crossing for both the users
of SENTRI and those who do not.
Automated Permit Port (APP)--the INS project that is designed to
use remote monitoring of Ports-of-Entry, which permits ports to operate
without actual human presence, while continuing to offer the inspection
service to the traveling public. Usually used on small, low-risk ports
where it is not cost effective to keep the port staffed full-time, or
in some cases, where the volume of traffic does not justify even
keeping the port open. The APP allows more effective use of the INS
officer time while letting ports remain open for the traveler.
Inspections are done by an officer in another port that is staffed.
Inspector time is thus made available for other inspection activities.
Arrival/Departure management--the INS project to capture arrival
and departure data, thus permitting a better accounting of who came
into the country and if and when they left.
Question. What does INS plan to achieve with the technology funding
provided by Congress in the 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary Appropriations Act?
Answer. The INS envisions the following achievements with the
technology funding provided in fiscal year 1998:
Enforcement
Acquisition and deployment of additional sensors, and night and day
vision systems.
Deployment of our ISIS project to the initial planned sites, which
integrates our night and day vision with our sensor program to create a
system that can automatically capture live video of an event triggering
a sensor, thus permitting the monitoring employee to see what is taking
place. This will allow deployment of officers much more efficiently/
effectively. Officers will not need to be deployed to check on a sensor
that has been set off by an animal. Also, officer safety will be
improved, e.g., the officer will know what they are walking into.
Deployment of ENFORCE to our initial planned sites, which has now
integrated the INS' IDENT system into it.
Continued deployment of our Encrypted Voice Radio System, which
will: (1) increase coverage, eliminating many of the dead spots that
now threaten officer safety; (2) increase security by encrypting radio
communications; and (3) give the INS officer compatibility with other
federal law enforcement agencies, i.e., ability to talk to them using
compatible radios permitting joint activities, and being able to call
on fellow officers from other agencies in an emergency.
Inspections
Install INSPASS at as many additional airports as funding will
permit (User Fee funded).
Install SENTRI at additional ports.
Continue to build the INS' Arrival/Departure management system,
while expanding the prototype to other airlines/airports.
Build a system that can capture and verify the biometrics of
persons crossing the land borders using the new Border Crossing Cards
being issued by the State Department.
Question. How does the Administration's request for 1999 build upon
the current program?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 1999 requests the
following technology funding to build upon the current program:
Enforcement operations are enhanced primarily through more
deployment of systems that were designed and built with funding
provided between fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1997. Plus, we
are continuing to convert the INS radio infrastructure to the new voice
encrypted narrow band system and acquiring more force multiplying
technology like camera systems, sensors, and night vision equipment.
Available funding will be used to expand deployment of inspections
systems designed and built with funding provided between fiscal year
1995 through fiscal year 1997, plus systems built with User Fee
funding. Work will continue to build the INS Arrival/Departure
management system and to find a workable solution to processing users
of the Border Crossing Cards by capturing and verifying that the user
of the card is the same person to whom it was issued by comparing
biometrics information.
Question. What are the most significant areas that INS intends to
address with technology resources?
Answer. The INS will focus on the following areas in the use of
technology funding:
Enforcement
As funding permits, we will acquire technology that will enable the
Border Patrol to patrol the border more thoroughly by augmenting the
agent with resource multiplying technology, e.g., be able to see
further, see over obstacles, sense alien movement, and detect
contraband or persons that are being concealed.
Detention Augmentation--we will be looking at the use of alternate
means of tracking low-risk persons who should be in detention, but are
not because there is not enough bed space, e.g., a system that would
require the alien to call in at prescribed times, that would verify the
location of the call and, through the use of a biometrics verifier,
that the caller is the person they say they are.
High speed pursuit--we will be looking at technology to safely stop
a car that is trying to run so that the vehicle does not get away and
there is no need for a high speed pursuit.
Portable/remote access to the INS information system--we will be
looking for cost effective technical solutions that will enable our
agents to have access to the INS information systems from very remote
locations.
Officer safety--we will be looking for technology to better protect
our officers from technology that violators of the law are using,
(e.g., armor penetrating bullets, radio frequency jamming devices).
Inspections
Our plans include:
Building a system that will facilitate the management of arriving
and departing travelers, capturing data that will enable INS to track
who has entered the country and whether they have left.
Building a system that will enable the capture of a biometrics from
a person attempting to use a Border Crossing Card and verify that the
user is the legitimate holder of the card, which is complicated by the
volume of users and the logistics of capturing biometrics data from a
pedestrian lane and from multiple persons riding in a vehicle.
As funding permits, acquiring technology that will enable the
Inspector to screen both persons and vehicles more thoroughly for
smuggled contraband and smuggled aliens. We will be looking for
technology that can detect the presence of persons and/or contraband
hidden in vehicles, containers, etc.
We are studying methods to stop cars that are attempting to get
away from a Port-of-Entry. Such attempts can occur at either high or
low speed and generally pose different problems than high speed
enforcement pursuits.
We will be looking at the state of facial recognition technology to
determine the feasibility of using it to screen persons awaiting
inspection, looking for a few very high priority persons, e.g.,
terrorists.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
catch and release
Question. Madam Commissioner, I note that the fiscal year 1999
budget request includes a significant increase--745 new positions--for
improved efforts in Interior Enforcement. Like many western states,
Colorado continues to face a very serious problem with illegal
immigration. The INS has estimated that 10,000 illegal immigrants have
settled in Colorado in the past five years, bringing the total to
45,000. This problem was plainly illustrated during the 1996 INS
``Operation Mountain Pass'' in which agents recovered more than 1,200
illegal aliens that were being smuggled through Colorado.
Time and time again, I hear of incidents in Colorado where INS
knows the location of illegal immigrants, but either picks them up only
to release them later, or simply does nothing at all.
How many of the 745 new positions that are being created for the
interior are likely to be assigned to Colorado?
Answer. The revised interior enforcement strategy will be the
steering mechanism for interior enforcement policy and operations in
the future, and will provide a systematic method for determining the
appropriate mix of occupational resources and functions in critical
locations. Until the strategy is completed, there is no accurate way to
forecast the number of positions to be allocated to Colorado from the
fiscal year 1999 Interior Enforcement Initiative.
Question. What additional assistance can the INS provide Colorado
law enforcement?
Answer. In an effort to train local law enforcement while
conducting INS operations, the Denver District will shortly initiate
Operation Common Ground. This operation will detail, for a period of 3
to 4 weeks, INS enforcement officers to rural communities to work with
and train local law enforcement. The goal of this operation is to
address the immigration issues of the locations while providing the
local law enforcement officers with a better understanding of
immigration law. This approach has already been successfully used in
Steamboat, CO, for three weeks in February 1998.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
ins restructuring
Question. Hal Rogers on the House side appears set to abolish INS
and divide your programs between the State Department, Labor
Department, and some new Justice agency. This will likely be one of the
most significant issues in the fiscal year 1999 Commerce, Justice and
State bill. Could you provide us with your assessment of this proposal,
which I believe came out of the Commission on Immigration Reform?
Answer. In its final report to Congress last fall, the Commission
on Immigration Reform (CIR) called for significant reform to our
Nation's immigration system. The major thrust of the CIR's proposed
reform would move many immigration functions to the Department of State
and Labor and would consolidate all immigration enforcement into a new
Federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice.
In response to the CIR's recommendations, the President asked the
Domestic Policy Council (DPC) to ``evaluate carefully the [CIR]
proposal and other reform options designed to improve the executive
branch's administration of the Nation's immigration laws.'' In
conducting this review, the DPC, working closely with the Office of
Management and Budget, consulted with the Departments of Justice,
Labor, and State, CIR staff, immigration experts and advocacy groups,
and other White House offices, including the National Security Council.
This review examined organizational and restructuring options including
those formulated by the CIR and members of Congress. From this effort,
the Administration established a new framework for reform, and the
Justice Department contracted with a management consulting firm to
provide an independent assessment of structural options and assist in
making the Administration's framework ``operational.''
Question. What is your alternative?
Answer.
The Administration's Framework for Change
The DPC review process concluded that the CIR report correctly
diagnosed many of INS' longstanding problems--insufficient
accountability between field offices and headquarters, lack of
consistency, need for greater professionalism, overlapping
organizational relationships, and significant management weaknesses.
These problems have hampered the INS' ability to enforce our
immigration laws effectively both at our borders and in the interior,
and provide immigration and citizenship services efficiently. Improving
the ability of the INS to pursue these critical priorities must be the
goal of any reform plan.
After careful consideration and study, the Administration concluded
that the most effective way to achieve this goal is to implement
dramatic and fundamental reforms within the INS. The Administration's
reform plan untangles INS' overlapping and frequently confusing
organizational structure and replaces it with two clear organizational
chains of command--one for accomplishing its enforcement mission and
one for providing services. Each operation would be headed by an
Executive Associate Commissioner (EAC) who would report directly to the
Commissioner through the Deputy Commissioner.
The plan will eliminate the current field structure in which
regional district offices serve both enforcement and service functions
and will replace it with separate enforcement and service offices that
bring the mix of staff and skills to local service caseload and
enforcement needs. The result will be an INS organization with
strengthened accountability and improved efficiency and effectiveness.
The plan will allow each operation to focus its unique knowledge,
skills, and abilities, while also retaining the essential integration
functions needed to coordinate these operations.
Improved Customer-Oriented Services
Creates new local service offices.--The new immigration services
operation would locate new service offices in immigrant communities
around the country. These offices would focus on providing efficient
and effective service, while maintaining the integrity of application
processing. The offices would provide a range of services including:
providing information to applicants, taking fingerprints and
photographs, testing, and interviewing. Depending on community needs,
some offices would be configured as full-service centers and others
could serve as satellite locations to perform specific functions. These
new service facilities would have a standard ``look and feel'' with
clear signs, comfortable waiting rooms, evening and weekend hours, and
other customer-friendly features.
Establish accountability and clear lines of authority.--The heads
of the local service offices would report to an Area Service Director.
The Area Service Director would report directly to the Executive
Associate Commissioner for Immigration Services. Area Service Directors
would have the flexibility to move case processing responsibilities
among offices within their area to maximize efficiency.
Establishes clear standards for customer service.--The Area Service
Directors would be held accountable for meeting a nationally-
established standard for timely processing and courteous service at all
locations throughout the area.
Offers high-tech answers.--This new framework provides high-tech
ways for people to receive better service through remote service
centers. As part of this restructuring effort, INS will re-examine the
capabilities of the four service centers that handle the automated,
bulk processing workload of the current district offices. These centers
currently take applications, create electronic records of them, and
conduct the pre-processing necessary before an examination is
administered. Under the new structure, more work would be shifted to
the service centers, thus allowing local offices to focus on core
activities which require interaction with customers. In addition, the
capabilities of the centralized phone centers which will provide
information to applicants and the public will also be examined.
A Strengthened and Integrated Enforcement Operation
Establish a single, coordinated enforcement function.--The plan
creates an operational chain of command dedicated solely to immigration
enforcement, focuses comprehensively on illegal immigration problems at
the border, and establishes better linkages with interior enforcement
through a single point of accountability for performance. This approach
would strengthen professionalism and improve results. This structure
also would ensure priorities are shared and allow close coordination of
day-to-day operations among each enforcement discipline.
Integrating enforcement and strengthening accountability.--The new
enforcement operations areas would combine all functions related to the
enforcement of immigration laws. Each enforcement area would be
organized according to four functions, and led by a single director.
The Area Enforcement Director would report directly to the Executive
Associate Commissioner for Enforcement.
Organizing enforcement areas by function.--The enforcement areas
would be organized around four functional goals: managing the border;
inspections and management at ports-of-entry; investigations and
removals; and detention.
--Border Patrol.--The Border Patrol would perform its current border
management functions of deterring illegal immigration,
apprehending illegal aliens, and working to dismantle smuggling
rings.
--Inspectors.--By putting inspectors in the enforcement chain of
command, the plan recognizes the critical role that ports-of-
entry play in INS' border management strategy. This would give
the ports a stronger role in the enforcement side of the agency
and inspectors a direct reporting relationship to the Area
Enforcement Director.
--Investigations and Removals.--This plan would also bring
investigators, intelligence officers, and deportation officers
into one multi-disciplinary component to focus on removals and
the pursuit of fraud, smuggling, and illegal employment at the
workplace. Offices in the field would be located in areas with
the greatest demand for those functions--similar to the
traditional Special or Resident Agent-in-Charge (SAC/RAC) law
enforcement model used by the FBI.
--Detention and Enforcement Support.--This framework would improve
the logistical coordination of transporting criminal and
illegal aliens and detaining them in long-term facilities by
centralizing the current district office detention and
transportation operations. Under the new framework, this
component would be better able to manage open bed space at INS
and contract facilities and improve and monitor conditions at
these facilities.
Shared Support
Providing the right tools.--The ``shared support'' operations
(e.g., records and data management, technological support, employee
relations, and administrative support) would serve as the
administrative and technological backbone upon which both enforcement
and service operations depend under the new framework. Under this new
structural framework each side of the agency has the appropriate
administrative and technological tools to do its jobs in the most
efficient and cost-effective way. These would range from new computer
software systems that are ``user-friendly'' for enforcement agents and
service officers, to appropriate training to strengthen
professionalism.
Improving accountability.--Under this restructuring plan the shared
support function will be held accountable for meeting the needs of the
enforcement and service operations in a timely and effective manner.
Managing essential records.--An important cohesive function of the
shared support operation is the management of all of INS' files and
electronic databases. INS' records are the foundation of its work--
whether in law enforcement or the provision of services to its
customers. For example, the information contained in those records
tells an INS deportation officer that an individual has overstayed his
visa and the last address at which he might be found. It also tells an
adjudicator whether a person has ever entered without inspection,
therefore jeopardizing the alien's eligibility to become a legal
permanent resident.
New ``Strategy'' Office
Setting priorities and assessing results.--The Administration's
proposed structure includes the creation of a small, new ``strategy''
unit that would focus on setting priorities, long-range strategic
planning, and policy development, as well as analyzing the
effectiveness of their implementation. The unit would draw heavily on
staff from headquarters and the field, as well as create subject area
task forces to draw on the expertise of individuals accountable for
each program.
New Chief Financial Officer Role
Enhancing accountability and efficiency.--The new structure
establishes a Chief Financial Officer to ensure effective allocation,
control, and monitoring of the agency's finances. This would enhance
accountability for managing the agency's resources and ensure that
immigrant services and enforcement have clearly separated and defined
resource streams.
Other Management Improvements
INS recognizes that a fundamental restructuring is only one aspect
of improving its ability to build a more effective organization. As
part of its reform efforts, the agency also is planning management
initiatives such as fundamentally redesigning outdated business
processes and the creation of new training opportunities for employees.
Conclusion
Preserving our country's tradition as a nation of laws and a nation
of immigrants requires one agency with clearly defined operational
lines of authority and accountability. This new structure will allow
our nation to better control its borders and provide improved service
and benefits to the immigrant community. The Administration's plan is a
bold initiative to strengthen the INS' capacity to accomplish this
critical mission.
interior enforcement
Question. Last year I raised the issue of local police arresting
illegal aliens and INS officials telling them to let them go. I've read
through your budget and you talk about interior enforcement
initiatives. Yet I keep reading about the Southwest Border. Do any of
your interior enforcement initiatives change INS presence in South
Carolina?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, the INS added 3 special agent
positions to the Charleston, SC, Suboffice as part of the 10 Per State
Congressional mandate contained in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These special agents have
reported on board and should create a more responsive relationship with
state and local law enforcement authorities. In fiscal year 1999, INS
is requesting 223 investigations program positions under the Interior
Enforcement Initiative. Thus far, we have not begun the deployment
planning process for fiscal year 1999 positions. If we were to receive
all the positions requested in the fiscal year 1999 budget, I would
expect to see positions allocated to the Atlanta District. As you know,
the Charleston, SC, Suboffice is part of the Atlanta District, and this
district has many of the industries that attract illegal alien workers.
border patrol growth
Question. Commissioner Meissner, as you know, General McCaffrey,
the Drug Coordinator, has proposed going up to 20,000 Border Patrol
agents, from the current authorized level of 7,859.
Have you looked at what would be needed to increase this level,
including what additional training load can be handled at the
Charleston Border Patrol Academy?
Answer. The Border Patrol Satellite Academy at Charleston, South
Carolina was initially established because INS' temporary training
requirements for the next several years far exceeded the capacity of
the FLETC. Initial plans called for INS to train approximately 4,000
Border Patrol agents from April 1996 to January 1999. With this
training requirement in mind, the original plans were to close the
temporary training facility in Charleston in fiscal year 1999.
In 1996, the Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which called for an
additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents per year through fiscal year
2001. Taking into consideration the authorization for 1,000 new agents
per year, attrition, and personnel movement to other agency positions,
the INS anticipates it will need to train approximately 2,000 new
Border Patrol agents per year through fiscal year 2001. Beyond fiscal
year 2001, just to maintain the increased staffing levels, INS
anticipates it will need to train approximately 1,500 new Border Patrol
agents per year indefinitely. The INS will also be training
approximately 2,700 Immigration Officers in fiscal year 1998 and 2,300
in fiscal year 1999. Current projections indicate that the INS will
need to train approximately 1,500 Immigration Officers per year through
fiscal year 2002.
In addition, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has
recommended that an additional 1,000 Border Patrol agent positions be
added in fiscal year 2002, and 700 more in fiscal year 2003, in order
to reach a total Border Patrol agent strength of 12,500 by the end of
fiscal year 2003. If the Congress acts on this plan, it will further
increase the basic training requirements for both initial hires and
replacements.
The INS is also experiencing a substantial increase in its advanced
training backlog. A five-year analysis shows that in order to reduce
the advanced training backlog, INS will have to provide advanced
training to approximately 9,400 journeyman and senior-level Border
Patrol agents and 14,100 journeyman and senior-level Immigration
Officers by fiscal year 2002 (this does not include the positions in
the ONDCP proposal). Presently, INS conducts advanced training at the
FLETC Advanced Training Facility in Artesia, New Mexico. It appears
that a requirement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct
additional basic training classes in Artesia, New Mexico, may impact
FLETC's ability to accommodate INS' advanced training requirements at
Artesia in the future.
In fiscal year 1995, when the training facility was planned for
three years, neither the INS nor FLETC anticipated the massive hiring
and training requirements. However, within the next five years, INS
will be required to provide basic and advanced in-service training to
approximately 20,000 Border Patrol agents and 24,000 Immigration
Officers.
Still, the ultimate goal is to gradually phase down the Charleston
operation and move completely back to FLETC sites. However, given the
requirements stated above, INS is requesting that the Charleston
facility remain open until FLETC is able to meet all of INS' basic and
advanced training requirements. No phase-down of the Charleston
operation should begin until adequate capacity at FLETC actually
exists.
Question. INS would need to augment the mess hall and renovate
additional quarters at the Academy if you had to exceed 2,000 trainees
per year, wouldn't you?
Answer. Yes, if the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center cannot
meet our needs, the INS would have to expand the Charleston Border
Patrol Academy facilities. We would have to expand the sleeping
quarters, driver training track, dining facility, firing range, and
physical training facility. Additional classrooms and office space also
would be required.
immigrant investor program
Question. The Immigration Act allows immigrant visas for foreigners
who invest in qualifying, job-creating enterprises in the United
States. This program has been quite successful; however your general
counsel unilaterally proposed to change the rules governing this
program, and would propose such changes in a manner that would
retroactively affect applications that have already been received and
are under process. Six months ago your INS officials started holding up
the program.
On February 4, Senators Spencer Abraham, Leahy, Inouye, Kennedy,
and I wrote you expressing concern about this INS action, and we
specifically stressed that any changes should be effective in the
future and should not apply to applications already received.
We have not received an answer from you. Why?
Answer. My staff is working on a response to your letter, and we
will send it as soon as it is completed. My staff also met with your
staff and others on March 6 and March 9, 1998, to brief them on the
investor visa program and hear your concerns in detail. We have
provided your staff with a copy of a December 9, 1997, legal opinion by
our General Counsel on the immigrant investor program, and are
available to answer any questions that you may have concerning this
program.
Question. My constituents have asked for a meeting with you to
explain the positive job-creating aspects of this program. To date,
your office has been unwilling to set such a meeting. Why?
Answer. On March 13, 1998, my Chief of Staff, the Deputy General
Counsel, the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, the
Director of Congressional Relations and other staff met with attorneys
representing your constituents in order to hear their concerns related
to the immigrant investor visa program. This meeting has given your
constituents the opportunity to meet with Service officials at the
highest levels who understand the details of this programs and can best
answer their questions and address their concerns. The Service is
committed to an open and continuous dialogue with all parties
interested in this program and others.
Question. When people up here argue that INS is not service-
oriented and inaccessible, I hope you will keep this in mind. We write
a law and then unelected, unappointed INS officials decide to
unilaterally reinterpret it. This change could cost thousands of jobs.
Answer. Immigration and Naturalization Service officials have not
unilaterally reinterpreted the law. After a thorough review of selected
petitions under the immigrant investor visa program, the Service
discovered that a number of petitions that are either pending or have
been approved are, as matter of fact, not in compliance with the plain
language of the law passed by Congress and long-standing regulations
promulgated by the Service. The review of a number of immigrant
investor petitions revealed that many aliens are filing petitions under
which they will invest only a small portion of the amount of the
capital required by the law. By law aliens are required to invest
either $1,000,000, or $500,000, depending on where the investment is
made. Under the terms of the investment plans filed with some
petitions, aliens are required only to invest about 10 percent of the
statutory minimum ($100,000 or $50,000) in actual job-creating U.S.
businesses. Under other investment programs little or no money is
reaching job-creating U.S. businesses. While it is possible that, when
the money from hundreds of aliens is pooled together, these smaller
investments will create some jobs, the law passed by Congress requires
that the investment by each alien create ten jobs and that each alien
invest the full $1,000,000 or $500,000. An alien who does not
demonstrate that he or she will create ten jobs, or who does not invest
the required amount of capital, is not eligible for an immigrant
investor visa. The Service will deny or revoke only those petitions
that do not meet the requirements of the statute and regulations.
After identifying certain petitions that appeared not to comply
with the law, the Service, on December 1, 1997, decided to delay the
adjudication of petitions containing provisions identified by our
General Counsel as not conforming to current law. The Service continues
to adjudicate all other immigrant investor visa petitions. The entire
investor visa program has not been put on hold. Also, there was no hold
or delay of adjudication at the Service between August and December of
1997.
Some of your constituents may be under the impression that there
was a hold beginning in August of 1997 because in August the State
Department began, under applicable regulations, to consider returning
petitions to the Service for revocation. The State Department in fact
returned a number of petitions in August of 1997, and the return of
these petitions has obviously delayed action on them. The Service's
review of EB-5 petitions was in part initiated because of the problems
identified by the State Department in these returned petitions, but the
Service did not begin to hold cases for review until December 1, 1997.
After that date, when the State Department became aware of the
Service's review of certain types of petitions, the State Department
began to prepare cases for return to the Service for possible
revocation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
immigrant investor program
Question. Since summer of last year, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) has suspended the processing of certain
investor immigrant visas (EB-5), which are issued to foreign investors
who invest in a qualifying, job-creating enterprise in the United
States.
I understand there is a review in progress at the INS on rules
governing what types of investment plans are allowable under the
investor visa program. While I do not object to a policy review, I am
concerned about the length of time it is taking the INS to implement
any administrative changes. Potential investments and jobs for
Americans hang in the balance. For example, I am aware that potentially
thousands of jobs are being threatened in the State of West Virginia
alone. Hawaii is one of two states that is operating as a regional
center and any prolonged delay will adversely impact our already
sluggish economy.
The INS has heard from a host of Senators, Republican and Democrat
alike, who have expressed concern at the INS' handling of this matter.
On February 4, 1998, I and four other Senators sent a letter to the
INS, requesting that any changes anticipated be made prospectively
rather than retroactively. To date, there has been no response to our
letter.
Congressional intent when passing this provision was to encourage
foreign investment and job creation in the United States. We wish to
ensure that the positive effect of this provision of law on the United
States economy is not diminished.
How long will the suspension for the EB-5 cases continue?
Answer. After identifying certain petitions that appeared not to
comply with the law, the Service, on December 1, 1997, decided to delay
the adjudication of petitions containing provisions identified by our
General Counsel as not conforming to current law. The Service continues
to adjudicate all other immigrant investor visa petitions. The entire
investor visa program has not been put on hold. Also, there was no hold
or delay of adjudication at the Service between August and December of
1997.
Some of your constituents may be under the impression that there
was a hold beginning in August of 1997, because in August the State
Department began, under applicable regulations, to consider returning
petitions to the Service for revocation. The State Department in fact
returned a number of petitions in August of 1997, and the return of
these petitions has obviously delayed action on them. The Service's
review of EB-5 petitions was in part initiated because of the problems
identified by the State Department in these returned petitions, but the
Service did not begin to hold cases for review until December 1, 1997.
After that date, when the State Department became aware of the
Service's review of certain types of petitions, the State Department
began to prepare cases subject to the Service's review for return to
the Service for possible revocation.
Those cases that are currently under review will be held until the
Administrative Appeals Office of the Service can issue precedent
decisions providing guidance to adjudicators and the public regarding
the deficiencies in the petitions being held and on what types of
investments comply with current law and regulations. This will take
approximately 3 to 4 more months.
Question. What is being done to ensure that the positive effect of
this provision of law on the U.S. economy is not going to be diminished
by the INS actions?
Answer. The delay of the adjudication of certain petitions is not
the result of a review of the rules of the EB-5 program, rather it is
the result of the review of a representative sample of petitions to
determine whether they comply with existing law. EB-5 petitions that do
not contain the provisions that contravene current law continue to be
adjudicated and the U.S. economy will continue to benefit from
investments made by these aliens. The review of a number of immigrant
investor petitions revealed that many aliens are filing petitions under
which they will invest only a small portion of the amount of the
capital required by the law.
By law aliens are required to invest either $1,000,000 or $500,000
depending on where the investment is made. Under the terms of the
investment plans filed with these petitions, aliens are required only
to invest about 10 percent or less of the statutory minimum ($100,000
or $50,000) in actual job-creating U.S. businesses. Under some
investment programs it appears that little or no money is reaching job-
creating U.S. businesses. While it is possible that, when the money
from hundreds of aliens is pooled together, these smaller investments
will create some jobs, the law passed by Congress requires that the
investment by each alien create ten jobs and that each alien invest the
full $1,000,000 or $500,000. An alien who does not demonstrate that he
or she will create ten jobs, or who does not invest the required amount
of capital, is not eligible for an immigrant investor visa. The Service
will deny or revoke only those petitions that do not meet the
requirements of the statute and regulations. To delay the processing of
such petitions and possibly deny them will not undermine the positive
effects that Congress intended the EB-5 program to have on the U.S.
economy. Rather, it will ensure that investors are actually investing
the amount of capital required by Congress and actually creating ten
American jobs. The Service will thereby ensure that this program has
the positive effect Congress intended it to have on the U.S. economy.
Question. Can the INS provide assurances that if any changes are
anticipated in the EB-5 program they will be made prospectively rather
then retroactively?
Answer. The Service does not intend to make retroactive changes in
the rules governing the EB-5 program. The Service is applying current
laws and rules to pending, and some approved, applications and may deny
applications or revoke approvals based on those rules. Because the
Service has approved some petitions in the past that do not conform to
current law, it may appear to some that the Service's proper
application of the law is a retroactive change in the rules. However,
the Service has an obligation to faithfully apply the laws passed by
Congress and its own published regulations.
We are making every effort to be fair to aliens who have entered
the United States as immigrant investors. The Service has decided not
to initiate rescission proceedings against aliens who have obtained
lawful permanent resident status without conditions based on petitions
that may have been improperly approved. Also, the Service has requested
an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel on whether the Service has
authority to approve petitions to remove conditions on permanent
resident status for aliens who have filed petitions determined not to
be in compliance with current statute and regulations. If the Service
does have the authority to approve such petitions, it will review
petitions on a case-by-case basis to determine if an approval is
warranted. With respect to aliens who have not yet entered the United
States as immigrant investors, the Service believes that it is
compelled to revoke EB-5 petitions that have been approved despite the
fact that they do not comply with current law and deny new petitions
that do not comport with current regulations.
______
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
denver metro gang task force
Question. Director Freeh, the Metro Denver Gang Task Force is
composed of federal, state, and local officials to address the issue of
gang-related crime in the Denver Metro area.
Would you please provide the subcommittee with your views on the
effectiveness of this Task Force?
What additional assistance can the FBI provide to the Metro Denver
Gang Task Force?
Answer. The FBI has established 157 multi-agency Safe Streets Task
Forces in 56 field offices. The mission of these task forces is to
coordinate law enforcement efforts and address strategically the most
prevalent violent crime problem in a community. This is accomplished in
concert with local, state and federal agencies who have statutory
jurisdiction. The emphasis is to reduce the incidence of violent crimes
that pose the most serious threat to American society. This is
accomplished by establishing long term, proactive investigations,
focusing on violent crimes and the apprehension of violent fugitives.
The FBI's Denver Field Office has identified violent crime
involving gangs as one of the most serious problems in Denver,
Colorado. In response to this problem, the FBI in conjunction with
local law enforcement, have joined together to form the Metro Gang Task
Force. Although, the Denver Metro Gang Task Force is not a designated
FBI Safe Streets Task Force, the task force has modeled itself after
other Safe Streets Task Forces.
In 1997, the Metro Gang Task Force brought forth the first
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization prosecution against a
violent street gang in Colorado. Historically, this street gang was
responsible for a large percentage of violent crime in the area in
which they operated. Based on feedback from local law enforcement and
public officials, the Metro Gang Task Force has had an impact on
reducing violent crime in the Denver, Colorado area.
The Metro Gang Task Force obtains funding from several sources,
such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to meet the task
force's operational and administrative expenses. The FBI provides
specific case funding on FBI cases. At this time, the Denver Field
Office has not made any specific requests for additional assistance
with respect to the Metro Gang Task Force, but the FBI is willing to
review any such request.
international crime
Question. During hearings with Attorney General Janet Reno and
Secretary of State Albright, I discussed serious new developments in
international crime and its effect on Americans here at home and
abroad. The Appropriations Committee, in its fiscal year 1998 Foreign
Operations committee report, expressed concern about the increase in
crime abroad and its direct and indirect impact on the United States.
The committee also requested the Secretary of State to convene a new
Secretaries' Task Force on International Crime, in cooperation with
Attorney General Reno, the Secretary of Treasury, and the ONDCP
Director, and report to Congress by March 28, 1998 on specific issues
which the committee outlined.
Although Secretary Albright's report is not due to Congress until
later this month, I would be interested to know what is the current
status of your participation in the formation of this task force?
Answer. As of March 18, 1998, the FBI has not participated in the
formation of this task force.
Question. Are there any preliminary thoughts you wish to share with
us here today on what the Justice Department and the FBI can do to help
countries reduce and prevent crime?
Answer. Yes. A substantial portion of FBI investigations have some
foreign connection. Because international crime has rapidly become one
of the FBI's most important challenges, the FBI has developed a
strategy to address these challenges now and to reduce the impact of
international crime on the citizens, economy, and the national security
of the United States. Included in this strategy are three types of
assistance to countries to reduce and prevent crime: foreign law
enforcement training, the FBI Legal Attache (Legat) program, and the
assignment of criminal investigators to Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) offices overseas pursuant to Resolution Six.
Foreign Law Enforcement Training
As changes in the world order create new opportunities for
democracy, an increase in criminal activity in emerging democracies and
third world nations is occurring. To combat the threat posed by
criminal activity abroad, the FBI is pursuing a broad spectrum of
international training initiatives. The FBI's International Training
Program supports the FBI's investigative mission by developing ``cop-
to-cop'' relationships and building foreign law enforcement expertise.
The FBI manages the operation of the International Law Enforcement
Academy (ILEA) in Budapest and provides instruction at the ILEA-South
(Latin America and the Caribbean), which is currently managed by the
Treasury Department. The FBI will also provide training at the proposed
ILEA-Asia (to become operational in 2000). The ILEA's have served and
will serve as the law enforcement training centers for officers from
designated regions of the world. Training at the ILEA's is focused on
the mid-level manager and is designed to meet the needs of the
participating countries. All funding for the ILEA's is provided by the
Department of State (DOS); however, the FBI and the other participating
agencies provide instructors and program managers for the oversight of
the ILEA's.
Currently, the FBI conducts international training courses, other
than the ILEA's, with funding from the DOS through such acts as the
Freedom Support Act, the Support for Eastern European Democracies Act,
and the Foreign Assistance Act for International Auto Theft training
initiatives.
--The FBI received funding from the DOS to implement National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) training initiative. This funding is
primarily for those foreign law enforcement entities that seek
to implement a large-scale criminal data base that will serve
the same purpose as the NCIC System.
--The FBI conducts in-country training courses in one- and two-week
sessions in foreign countries to meet each country's particular
training needs. The in-country training ranges from basic
investigative techniques to internal audit courses.
--Other contributions to the FBI's International Training Initiative
are the in-country Training Needs Assessments and Practical
Case Training (PCT) initiatives. At the host government's
invitation, the FBI, together with host country personnel,
conducts an analysis of the country's crime problem and police
training needs. The FBI then provides the host government with
recommendations to enhance its techniques and capabilities
through FBI assistance and training.
--The PCT initiative is an on-the-job training program that enables
foreign police entities and FBI agents to work together on
actual investigations of mutual interest. Foreign officers
travel to the United States to participate in interviews, grand
jury testimony, interaction with the U.S. Attorney's office,
and hands-on experience with various investigative operational
techniques. The PCT initiative also involves sending FBI agents
to foreign countries to train their counterparts in the same
way.
--At the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, the FBI provides
traditional executive development programs, that is, the
National Academy, the National Executive Institute, and the Law
Enforcement Executive Development Seminar, and includes
officials from the emerging democracies around the world in
these training initiatives.
Legat Program
The FBI Legat is the front line of defense in keeping foreign-based
crime as far away as possible from U.S. shores. Legats are operational
links with foreign law enforcement and security agencies. As of March
19, 1998, there are 92 highly trained investigators in 32 cities,
working to develop the strongest possible law enforcement relationships
in key countries around the world. These relationships have proved
themselves many times in critical situations when the success of an
investigation hinges on expedient host country support and cooperation.
Resolution Six
To coordinate investigations of multi-jurisdictional, international
drug trafficking organizations and their attendant money laundering
operations with all foreign agencies that assist the United States, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Investigative Agency Policies
(OIAP) issued Resolution Six concerning the conduct of DOJ criminal
investigations overseas. The FBI will provide criminal investigative
personnel to certain DEA overseas offices. To date, the FBI has
assigned three agents to the DEA offices at Bogota, Colombia; Mexico
City, Mexico; and Bangkok, Thailand.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
communications assistance for law enforcement act [calea]
Question. Judge Freeh, we are obviously behind schedule on
implementing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. As
I understand it, industry claims that the FBI has tried to enhance its
capabilities and capacity to conduct court-ordered electronic
surveillance in a digital environment. How do you respond? Why has it
been so difficult to reach an agreement that the Justice Department and
industry can live with?
Answer. The purpose of CALEA is to preserve law enforcement's
ability to conduct electronic surveillance commensurate with the
authority embodied in underlying electronic surveillance statutes. The
FBI, on behalf of all federal, state and local law enforcement, has
sought to maintain electronic surveillance capabilities and to ensure
sufficient capacity exists in the future to accommodate all lawfully-
authorized electronic surveillance requests. However, industry has not
agreed with the capabilities we consider necessary to enable law
enforcement to receive the same information in the future that it
previously received through traditional interception methods. With such
different views toward implementation requirements, it has been
difficult for law enforcement and industry to reach agreement. However,
law enforcement has been working diligently over the last eight months
to address industry's concerns while maintaining important law
enforcement requirements.
Some in industry have expressed concerns with respect to a set of
capabilities that law enforcement believes is required if it is to
continue to meet evidentiary and minimization requirements in the
digital age. These are the so-called ``punch list'' missing
capabilities that are not included in industry's proposed CALEA
standard. In an effort to respond to industry concerns regarding the
legality of these items, the Department of Justice undertook an
extensive legal review of law enforcement's ``punch-list'' missing
capabilities and provided industry its legal opinion. The Department
concluded that nine ``punch list'' missing capabilities were required
by CALEA and the underlying electronic surveillance statutes.
With respect to industry's concerns over law enforcement's capacity
requirements, the FBI has developed application language within the
Final Notice of Capacity which allows telecommunications carriers and
manufacturers to determine the impact of its switching systems. The
Final Notice of Capacity contains a high-end capacity ceiling that law
enforcement would expect from any one switch if a carrier chooses to
deploy a switch-based solution. The Final Notice of Capacity also
defines a ceiling for both call identifying information-based
interceptions and call content-based interceptions. The Final Notice of
Capacity was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 1998.
Recent meetings between the Department, the FBI and the
telecommunications industry have concluded with a commitment by the
industry and law enforcement to work together intensively and
cooperatively for the next 60 days. During this 60-day period, industry
and law enforcement will: (1) assess the technical feasibility of
developing solutions that fully meet law enforcement requirements; (2)
clarify the financial implications of developing solutions that fully
meet law enforcement requirements; and (3) develop corresponding CALEA
solution development timelines. While the 60-day exercise is underway,
the Department and the FBI filed a deficiency petition with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) opposing the interim standard adopted
by the telecommunications industry. Industry and law enforcement are
continuing technical and pricing discussions during the 60-day period.
Question. What happens if industry is not compliant under the law?
What disincentives are there for the industry to be in non-compliance?
Answer. CALEA requires the telecommunications industry to develop
and deploy CALEA-compliant solutions in their networks by October 25,
1998, with or without an industry adopted standard. CALEA allows a
court to issue enforcement orders against a telecommunications carrier
after that date if a carrier is unable to comply with an affirmative
request from law enforcement for lawfully-authorized electronic
surveillance on their equipment, facilities or services. Those carriers
who cannot comply with a lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance
request are subject to $10,000 per day fine per surveillance court
order.
The Attorney General recognizes the telecommunications industry's
concern over the compliance date and has offered not to pursue
enforcement actions against a carrier under section 108 of CALEA with
regard to the CALEA mandate that a carrier meet the assistance
capability requirements by October 25, 1998. The Attorney General would
also support a carrier's petition to the FCC requesting extensions of
the October 25, 1998, compliance date. Forbearance and support of
extension requests would be contingent upon industry's good faith
efforts to develop a solution that is consistent with law enforcement's
requirements.
The law enforcement community asserts that fully CALEA-compliant
solutions must allow law enforcement to maintain the integrity of
interceptions and the ability to intercept the same information that it
previously received through traditional methods, that is, before the
advent of advanced telecommunications services and features
necessitated electronic surveillance efforts to be effected within a
carrier switch or network facilities. Law enforcement believes that the
capabilities and capacity that it is seeking will neither enlarge nor
reduce the authority found in underlying electronic surveillance
statutes.
federal bureau of investigation academy
Question. Director Freeh, one of the things that I am always asked
about by local law enforcement officials when I journey in my state is
the FBI State and Local Academy at Quantico. The problem is that it is
very difficult to get a law enforcement officer into the Academy. For a
small state like South Carolina we are told that there just aren't many
opportunities, and our Agent in Charge can nominate only one or two
people per class.
But when I asked my staff to take a look at this issue, they
pointed out that the FBI reserves about 10 percent of the available
space for foreigners who are nominated by your legal attaches overseas.
Given the limited nature of spaces available and the number of
American law enforcement officials who want to attend the Academy, why
are you reserving these spaces for foreigners? Isn't that why we agreed
to let you establish a training school in Budapest?
Answer. The National Academy (NA), which began in July of 1935, has
included international students since the fourth session of the
program. In fact, the number of students from friendly foreign
governments invited to attend the NA was increased by President John F.
Kennedy in an effort to build bridges of cooperation among law
enforcement agencies worldwide.
When the NA program relocated to the FBI Academy in Quantico,
Virginia, the total number of students were increased to 250 per
session (1,000 per year) and the number of international students
averaged in the upper twenties. In the last two years, the NA has
expanded to 270 students per session; however, the number of
international students has remained the same. Upon relocation of the
DEA to the Justice Training Center (anticipated in the summer of 1999),
the NA plans to expand each session to 300 students (1,200 per year)
without an increase in international student participation.
The FBI believes international students provide a valuable element
to the NA experience and the domestic law enforcement attendees. They
share their experience in law enforcement, their culture, and through
this interaction both domestic and international students develop a
better understanding of the law enforcement profession.
The sharing of the NA experience between domestic and international
students inaugurates a lifelong relationship. One of the most effective
methods of building rapport and eliciting law enforcement cooperation
from foreign countries is through training. The value of these
relationships to U.S. law enforcement is that they have a worldwide
network of contacts to assist them in carrying out their duties
especially when matters become extra-territorial.
The purpose of opening the International Law Enforcement Academy
(ILEA) in Budapest was not to replace the opportunity for a limited
number of foreign law enforcement officers to attend the NA. The
curriculum offered at the ILEA in Budapest is based upon a key concept
of the NA, namely, bringing together law enforcement officers from
varying jurisdictions and sizes of departments so that students may
build ``cop-to-cop'' relationships among their classmates and exchange
ideas, experiences, and practices. The ILEA training academy at
Budapest allows a greater number of foreign law enforcement officers to
receive training that is based upon the NA approach. Finally, given the
growing trans-national nature of many crimes problems, state and local
law enforcement students attending the NA often look forward to the
opportunity to share their NA experience with a limited number of
foreign law enforcement officials.
puerto rico
Question. Director Freeh, I was wondering if you could discuss the
situation in Puerto Rico. I've heard that the drug and corruption
problem there is severe and that it is a hardship post for FBI and DEA
agents.
How bad is the situation and is Puerto Rico a platform to bring to
narcotics into the mainland United States?
Answer. The overall crime problem in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean
is serious. Causal factors center principally around Puerto Rico, which
is a drug transit zone and a center for drug/gang activity. Colombian,
Dominican and Puerto Rican criminal groups transport illicit drugs into
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the continental United States.
Other significant factors, which contribute to the overall crime
problem in Puerto Rico, include drug-related violent crime, money
laundering, illegal immigration and alien smuggling.
Colombian drug traffickers use Dominican transporters to receive
airdrops, off-load drug shipments and transport drugs into the United
States. Dominican criminal groups are used because of their expertise
in smuggling aliens and contraband into the United States and their
willingness to violate the law. Dominican drug distribution
organizations also control much of the retail drug distribution in the
Northeastern United States and are expanding their operations to other
cities along the Eastern seaboard. It has been estimated that between 7
and 12 tons of cocaine are smuggled into Puerto Rico each month and
that 80 percent of this cocaine is transported to the United States. An
inter-agency assessment concluded that approximately 33 percent of
cocaine entering the continental United States, does so via the
Caribbean.
With regard to retention of FBI agents in Puerto Rico, the FBI is
conducting an on-site review/assessment of the issues related to Puerto
Rico as a post of duty that will be completed in the near future. It
addresses a number of sub-issues including safety and health care for
FBI employees and their families, housing and education for their
children, taxes/surcharges imposed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the overall cost of living. Various options are being explored to
address the retention issue. These issues are currently being addressed
in a separate working group with the Department of Justice.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
integrated automated fingerprint identification system [iafis]
Question. Under the FBI's incremental build approach for the IAFIS,
you have been making available some functions of the new system to
State and local law enforcement at early dates, rather than waiting
until the full system is available for operations. I am told that
Federal, State and local users are very receptive to this approach and
are enjoying successes because of it. What accomplishments have been
achieved from the early availability of certain IAFIS functions to
Federal, State, and local users?
Answer. While the primary purpose in adopting the incremental
development approach was to reduce the risk of systems integration, the
FBI has been able to deploy some IAFIS capabilities early. The first
two, of a total of six, IAFIS builds were completed in 1996. These two
builds provided FBI latent fingerprint specialists with the capability
to conduct a limited number of latent fingerprint searches per day
against several small fingerprint data bases representing approximately
500,000 criminal subjects.
Using this capability, the FBI latent specialists have, as of March
19, 1998, been able to identify 21 latent fingerprint images from old
cases that they had not been able to identify prior to the introduction
of this new technology. In some cases, the results confirmed the
identity of subjects previously known and connected with the crime. In
many others, however, new, previously unknown subjects were identified,
providing the investigators with new leads in the case. Local, State,
and Federal agencies have been made aware of this capability and are
being encouraged to submit important unsolved cases to the FBI
Laboratory for processing against these data bases.
The full potential of IAFIS will only be realized when the need to
transport and process paper fingerprint records is eliminated. The
ability to provide positive identifications of criminal subjects while
they are still in custody can only be effected if fingerprints are
captured and transmitted electronically from local, State, and Federal
agencies to the FBI for processing. Many local, State, and Federal
criminal justice agencies do not currently have the technology to
enable them to capture and transmit fingerprint records to the FBI
electronically.
In 1997, as an additional initiative under the IAFIS project, the
FBI began the development of an inexpensive fingerprint card scan
system that could be made available to State and Federal agencies to
help them develop the capability to submit fingerprints electronically.
Several pilot versions of this system, known as the Interim Distributed
Imaging System (IDIS), were deployed during the summer of 1997, and the
first full function IDIS was installed at the Colorado Bureau of
Investigation in December 1997.
In order to support the transmission of electronic fingerprint
records from State agencies using the IDIS, the FBI also had to provide
a communications network. The CJIS Wide Area Network (WAN), an integral
part of IAFIS design, was developed and deployed early in order to fill
this need. With an intensive effort beginning in the spring of 1997,
the FBI successfully completed connections to all 50 State
identification bureaus by October 1, 1997. Using IDIS and the CJIS WAN,
several State and Federal agencies are currently transmitting
fingerprint records electronically to the new fingerprint facility in
Clarksburg, WV.
Furthermore, over the last year, as IAFIS nears completion,
INTERPOL has shown increasing interest in using IAFIS standards and
technology to exchange criminal justice information among its member
countries. Since it would benefit law enforcement to have the same
standards in place not only nationally but world-wide, the FBI has been
working closely with INTERPOL to foster their participation. In January
of this year the FBI installed an IDIS at INTERPOL headquarters in
Lyon, France, and effectively demonstrated that fingerprint data and
other images could be transmitted internationally using Internet
technology. The success of this pilot has led the FBI to rename IDIS
the ``International'' Distributed Imaging System.
Another accomplishment is the conversion of the 32 million criminal
fingerprint card master file into digital images and the loading of
these digital fingerprint images into the fingerprint image storage and
retrieval subsystem. The fingerprint image storage and retrieval
subsystem became operational in October 1997. Today, FBI fingerprint
examiners are using the subsystem to conduct over 40,000 fingerprint
comparisons each day. As a result, local, State, and Federal users are
receiving a significant benefit because their fingerprint
identification requests are being processed more quickly and response
times have been significantly reduced.
Question. In early 1997, the FBI was reporting a fingerprint card
processing backlog of almost 2.9 million cards, with an average receipt
of over 51,000 cards per day. To alleviate this backlog, the FBI
committed itself to hiring 1,100 new employees for its operations in
Clarksburg. What is the current status of the backlog of fingerprint
cards?
Answer. As of the close of business March 9, 1998, the FBI total
count was 540,956 fingerprint cards, down from approximately three
million at the beginning of calendar year 1997.
Question. What are your current average receipt and turnaround
times for both civil and criminal submissions?
Answer. The combined daily average receipts for criminal and civil
fingerprint cards for fiscal year 1998, from October 1997, through
February 1998, are 47,837 fingerprint cards per day with average
closeouts running at 56,770 per day for the same time period. The
current turnaround time as of March 3, 1998, is 34 days for criminal
fingerprint card submissions and 24 days for civil fingerprint card
submissions.
Question. What are your projections for 1999?
Answer. Based on the trend for the past ten years, the FBI
anticipates fingerprint receipts totaling approximately 14 million
cards in fiscal year 1999.
Question. How does this compare to the situation which existed in
early 1997?
Answer. If these 14 million fingerprint cards are realized, it will
represent an increase of 1.2 million cards, and an 8.9 percent increase
compared with receipts in fiscal year 1997.
Question. The FBI has done a remarkable job in hiring its
fingerprint identification staff in West Virginia. I have visited and
am impressed with the new facility in Clarksburg. This new facility is
at least as large as space the Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division formerly occupied in Washington, D.C. Operating this
new stand-alone facility requires a number of services such as
maintenance, shipping, warehousing, automotive fleet, security, and
utilities, which were funded by the FBI overhead at FBI Headquarters
when the division was still located there. Now that all of CJIS
Division functions have been relocated to Clarksburg, do you anticipate
funding requirements for Clarksburg facility operations and maintenance
that are not included in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
Answer. The CJIS Division Complex is located on 986 acres and
consists of: (1) nine buildings, providing over 781,000 square feet of
space for a computer center, offices, storage, and infrastructure
activities, (2) three miles of roads, and (3) parking for over 2,000
vehicles. As of March 2, 1998, the CJIS Division had 3,013 personnel
assigned to the facility in Clarksburg, West Virginia. As you note, the
CJIS Division has assumed the responsibility of performing many
functions that were previously handled by other FBI Headquarters
Divisions. Now that the complex has been operational for over two
years, the CJIS Division, using historical data, estimates that the
annual cost for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the Complex at
approximately $4.074 million in direct funding. Through 1998, the FBI
funded the O&M of the facility through the funding appropriated
annually for the Revitalization and Relocation project. As IAFIS
development funding will be nonrecurred once the system comes on line,
it will be necessary to address potential shortfalls in O&M funding in
future budget requests. Estimated annual O&M costs are summarized in
the following table:
Estimated West Virginia Complex O&M Costs
Item Cost
Electric...................................................... $845,000
Water......................................................... 74,100
Sewer......................................................... 37,050
Gas........................................................... 256,500
Building Maintenance Supplies................................. 1,026,000
Site Repairs/Landscape Maintenance/Custodial.................. 1,282,500
Trash Removal................................................. 57,000
Security Uniforms/Equipment................................... 105,450
Automotive Supplies........................................... 31,350
Internal Communications and Electronic Building Management
Sys- tems................................................. 359,100
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Direct Funding Requirement........................ 4,074,050
Question. I am told that connecting the IAFIS to more than 50 other
Federal, State and local control terminal agencies will require a
dedicated, secure telecommunications network called the CJIS Wide Area
Network, or CJIS WAN. I understand that the CJIS WAN was implemented
using IAFIS development funding but that recurring operating and
maintenance costs will be needed. What are the estimated annual
operating costs for the CJIS WAN for 1998 and 1999? Are you
anticipating operating and maintenance requirements for the CJIS WAN
that are not included in the fiscal year 1999 budget request?
Answer. The CJIS WAN was successfully connected to all 50 States by
October 1, 1997, using IAFIS development funding. As IAFIS development
funding will be nonrecurred once the system comes on line, it will be
necessary to address potential shortfalls in O&M funding in future
budget requests. Estimated operating and maintenance costs for 1999 are
listed on the following table.
Estimated CJIS WAN O&M Costs
Fiscal
Item year 1999
Leased telephone circuits.....................................$1,687,200
Technical support equipment................................... 114,000
Engineering and Operations support............................ 795,800
Maintenance of hardware and software.......................... 114,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Funding Requirement............................... 2,711,000
The telecommunications costs include the leased line recurring
costs and maintenance services provided by Sprint, the FBI's FTS 2000
service provider. The projected costs were derived from pricing data
obtained from Sprint. Engineering and Operations support includes
contracted support to augment FBI staffing to provide on-going
administration of the CJIS WAN. Hardware and software maintenance
support projections are based on estimates provided by vendors for
equipment used as part of the CJIS Hub installed in the CJIS Division
at the FBI West Virginia Complex.
Question. The CJIS Division will be bringing on-line three major
systems in 1999: the IAFIS, NCIC 2000, and National Instant Check
System. I would expect that these activities will require a high level
of interaction with systems users across the nation, as well as the
need for regularly scheduled audits of State operations for compliance
with policies governing these systems. I am told that to be responsive
to the law enforcement and criminal justice communities will require
additional funds to support CJIS Division travel activities. Are
current levels for travel funds available for providing training and
related services to the law enforcement and criminal justice community,
as well as performing scheduled audits of State Control Terminal
Agencies, sufficient to meet anticipated demand in 1999?
Answer. Bringing on-line the National Instant Check System, NCIC
2000, and IAFIS will require additional travel by FBI staff to prepare
State and local end-users and technical staff to ensure a smooth start-
up of these three major systems. These demands will be in addition to
regularly-planned travel for system audits, training, and advisory
policy board meetings. The level of funding available in the 1999
budget will necessitate the establishment of priorities for travel.
Question. Are additional funds needed to protect the significant
investment in these valuable criminal justice systems?
Answer. The FBI always wishes to maximize its interaction and
assistance to the criminal justice community at the local, State and
Federal level. The types of services provided by the CJIS Division
requires constant interaction with users to identify their requirements
and modify, when agreed to, policies and procedures to meet their
requirements. Travel to numerous locations throughout the United States
and some foreign locations is required in order for the CJIS Division
to liaison properly with law enforcement agencies.
The implementation of the new automated systems will require
additional travel by CJIS Division employees to: (1) provide training
to the users on the use of the new systems, and (2) audit the users to
ensure the accuracy of the data contained within the systems. For
example, after deployment of the NCIC 2000 system, the States will have
a three-year transition period to convert existing systems to the new
capabilities. State and other Federal agencies will require assistance
from the FBI as they convert their systems. It is anticipated that the
frequency of technical conferences will increase with additional
attendees in fiscal year 1999 due to the implementation of the new
systems.
Question. The new Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS) is scheduled to become operational in the third quarter
of 1999, or mid-1999. I understand that, for a while, the FBI will be
operating both the current system and the IAFIS in parallel while you
make the transition from one system to the other. IAFIS development
funding will be reduced in the fiscal year 1999 budget as you come to
the end of the system development phase; yet I am concerned that
funding be available to operate the system during this transition
period. Does the FBI still plan for the IAFIS system to meet its target
for full operational capability in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The FBI still expects to deliver a fully operational IAFIS
system in fiscal year 1999 as planned.
Question. Do you anticipate IAFIS operational costs in fiscal year
1999 that are not currently covered by IAFIS development funding?
Answer. For 1999, the amount of funding requested for the
Revitalization and Relocation project will support IAFIS through the
third quarter of 1999 when the system comes on line. The final costs
for delivery of the IAFIS system will determine the availability of
funds for operations and maintenance (O&M) during the fourth quarter of
1999. Shortfalls, if any, would have to be covered from other FBI
funds. As IAFIS development funding will be nonrecurred once the system
comes on line, it will be necessary to address potential shortfalls in
O&M funding in future budget requests. The estimated O&M requirements
for IAFIS for the fourth quarter of 1999 are listed in the following
table:
Item Cost
Hardware Maintenance.......................................... $461,337
Software Maintenance.......................................... 1,534,921
System Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA)............ 1,179,781
Operations Personnel.......................................... 381,647
Renewals for Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Software......... 340,202
Service Provider Training..................................... 1,115,112
Prerequisite Training......................................... 285,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Direct Funding Requirement (one-quarter only)..... 5,298,000
______
Drug Enforcement Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
mexico drug certification
Question. Once again this year, the Administration has taken the
controversial step of certifying that Mexico is fully cooperating with
the United States in the drug war. It has been widely reported that you
disagree with that decision, particularly in light of the continued
corruption and increased drug violence in Mexico in the last year.
What role does DEA play in the certification process?
Answer. During the course of the drug certification process, I
provided the Attorney General with DEA's factual assessment of the drug
enforcement situation in the various countries being evaluated for
certification purposes. My comments are limited to law enforcement
issues, and I do not make a recommendation as to any country. The
Attorney General then makes her recommendation to the Department of
State.
Question. Did DEA recommend to the Administration that it not
certify Mexico this year? What specific facts led the DEA to make the
recommendation that it made?
Answer. As I have previously indicated, I did not make a
recommendation to the Attorney General as to whether or not Mexico
should be certified. I simply updated her on the state of drug
enforcement efforts in Mexico.
Question. Do you think it would bring more credibility to the
certification process if a law enforcement agency like the Justice
Department or DEA took the lead role in the certification decision?
What role does the State Department play in the work the DEA does
with Mexico regarding drug trafficking? Which federal agencies are the
most informed about the specific counternarcotics activities undertaken
by a particular country and the level of cooperation the United States
receives from particular countries?
If Congress were to change the certification law, is there any
reason why the Justice Department or DEA could not assume the lead
responsibility for advising the President on whether a country is fully
cooperating with the drug effort?
Answer. Law enforcement agencies such as DEA provide policy makers
with specific and unbiased information regarding the performance and
progress of the anti-narcotics efforts of the various countries being
considered for certification. We have the ability to provide an
assessment of each nations progress against the organized criminal
syndicates who control the drug trade in their country and their
ability to both accept and share sensitive information in a secure
manner. There are a number of other social, economic and political
variables outside the drug law enforcement arena, which have become
part of the certification process. I believe that the current role of
law enforcement is appropriate.
Concerning cooperative efforts between the State Department and DEA
on drug related issues in Mexico, the Department of State, Bureau for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) works closely
with DEA in providing both training and law enforcement related
equipment to the Government of Mexico. Currently, all purchases of
equipment by DEA for the foreign counternarcotics operations of host
nation law enforcement are facilitated by INL. Through the publication
of the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), INL
provides statistics, derived from data supplied by Mexican authorities,
on eradication efforts, drug seizures, and arrests in Mexico.
There are a number of law enforcement and other government agencies
in the United States that are well-versed in a variety of drug-related
issues in Mexico, including: the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, the Border Patrol,
the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense, in
addition to the Department of State.
Question. Do you agree with the Administration's decision to
decertify Colombia, but grant it a national interest waiver, while
fully certifying Mexico? Were these decisions consistent given each
country's level of cooperation? How would you compare the level of
cooperation received from Colombia with that of Mexico? Did Mexico do a
better job, a worse job, or about the same?
Answer. As you know, I have made a policy decision within DEA not
to comment on the ultimate certification decisions of the President,
because certification is a process for diplomatic and political
institutions. As a law enforcement agency, DEA is primarily responsible
for investigating and incarcerating the leaders of the organized drug
crime syndicates that control the flow of drugs to and within our
country. We work closely with our host nation law enforcement
counterparts to identify and target the leaders of these drug
syndicates and their methods of operation. Based on these operations,
we provide advice to diplomatic and political officials regarding the
extent of the drug problem and progress made by nations where drug
command and control operations are based. In terms of the cooperation
that the United States receives from Mexico and Colombia in the drug
law enforcement arena, we have received varying degrees of cooperation
from Colombia and Mexico, based, in large part, on their institutional
strengths and weaknesses.
Mexico
In Mexico, the Government of Mexico has made some progress by
reconstituting its drug law enforcement infrastructure since the
disclosure of the scandalous drug corruption of General Gutierrez-
Rebollo last year. The Mexican Government must also be credited with
placing the law enforcement pressure on the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
organization that resulted in the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes,
although his organization continues to operate, and a reign of violence
has been unleashed as his would-be successors battle for control of the
organization.
Some progress also has been made in the development of law
enforcement cases. For example, former Jalisco state Governor Flavio
Romero de Velasco was jailed on January 24, 1998, in connection with
his ties to drug lords Rigoberto Gaxiola Medina and Jorge Abrego Reyna
Castro. Romero is accused of laundering drug money, accepting bribes,
and providing a safe haven for drug lords in his western state between
1977 and 1983.
While there have been some positive developments in United States-
Mexican drug law enforcement cooperation, unfortunately, the Government
of Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known
syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a
substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine
markets in the United States. There have been a number of procedural
changes as the Mexican Government restructures its institutions charged
with enforcing the drug laws. New personnel have been brought in to
replace corrupt or ineffective officials. However these changes have
yet to produce significant results. The ultimate test of any progress
is measured by apprehending the syndicates' leadership and bringing
them to justice.
One promising program for cooperative law enforcement with the
Government of Mexico was a proposed series of Bilateral Border Task
Forces (BTF's). In 1995, the United States and the Government of Mexico
developed the concept of the BTF's, which, as envisioned, were to be
located in Mexico, at locations along the United States-Mexican border.
The main objective of these task forces was to target the major Mexican
drug trafficking organizations and their command and control centers
operating at various points along the border. The BTF's were to be
composed of Mexican counternarcotics agents from the now disbanded
National Counter-Drug Institute (INCD), along with United States law
enforcement agents from the DEA, FBI, and U.S. Customs Service. The
task forces were to be physically located in Mexico, with United States
law enforcement agents traveling to Mexico on a daily basis, from home
offices in the United States. In concept, the goal of these task forces
was for the United States ``commuter'' agents to bring their Mexican
counterparts in the BTF's timely information from drug investigations
in the United States.
Regretfully, the BTF's have yet to achieve their full potential,
due in large part, to the lack of sustained financial support for the
program by the Government of Mexico. DEA continues to provide both
extensive financial resources and intensive training to the Mexican
vetted units, but there have been few significant arrests, drug
seizures, or intelligence leads developed by these vetted units.
The Government of Mexico is attempting to build a reliable civilian
law enforcement agency to replace the former anti-drug agency, INCD,
which had been seriously corrupted at virtually every level. The new
agency is called FEADS, Special Prosecuting Office for Crimes Against
Health. The Organized Crime Unit (OCU), operating in the FEADS
headquarters in Mexico City, was set up in 1997, pursuant to the
Organized Crime Law passed in 1996. The DEA has provided assistance to
the OCU in the development of personnel selection systems and extensive
narcotics enforcement training to the new OCU agents.
Although reconstitution of law enforcement institutions is under
way in Mexico, this is a difficult and lengthy process that may take
decades. Several programs have been initiated, but the institution-
building process is still in its infancy. There are now some
individuals and small organizations with whom we are able to interact
on specific cases. We limit this exchange, however, to individual cases
when we are sure the information would not put our agents or sources of
information at risk.
The problems of establishing a corruption-free law enforcement
infrastructure are not insurmountable. However, it is essential that it
be established because of the enormous damage these criminal
organizations, based in Mexico, are causing to U.S. citizens, as well
as to Mexican. The only effective law enforcement strategy is to bring
these criminals to justice and ensure that they are punished in a
manner commensurate with their vicious acts.
Colombia
In Colombia, the political environment continues to hinder United
States Government counterdrug efforts. Divergent anti-drug agendas
within the Colombian Government, a frail judicial system, widespread
official corruption, and a weak institutional resolve to confront the
drug problem continue to limit Colombia's ability to cooperate with the
U.S. Government in the counterdrug arena. In addition, Colombia is
struggling with a violent insurgency and counterinsurgency both of
which have links to drug trafficking. Our continued counterdrug efforts
and accomplishments in Colombia are a testament to the professionalism
and dedication of the Colombian drug law enforcement forces.
The Colombian National Police (CNP) is a major law enforcement
organization with a historical tradition. The CNP had significant
corruption problems in the 1980's and early 1990's, but took the
dramatic steps necessary to address that corruption and have progressed
to become a professional and trusted ally.
Over the past two and one-half years, all of the top Cali drug
lords have been either captured by the CNP, died, or have surrendered
to Colombian authorities. These unprecedented drug law enforcement
successes were the culmination of years of investigative efforts by the
CNP and the DEA. The CNP continues to pursue significant drug
investigations, as follows:
--In April 1997, as the result of critical intelligence provided by
the CNP, Venezuelan authorities arrested Colombian drug lord
Justo Pastor Perafan. Perafan was extradited to the United
States for prosecution in May 1997. Perafan's trafficking
organization smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine to the
United States and Europe via containerized maritime cargo.
--In August 1997, Julio Caesar Nasser David was arrested by the CNP.
Nasser David headed a major polydrug trafficking and money
laundering organization based out of Colombia's North Coast.
His organization smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine and
marijuana via shipping and containerized cargo. Over $200
million in drug proceeds have been seized from Nasser David by
the DEA and Swiss authorities. Nasser Davis also is charged in
the United States with serious narcotics felonies.
--North Valle del Carca drug lord Jose Orlando Henao Montoya
surrendered to Colombian authorities in September 1997, to face
illicit enrichment and money laundering charges.
--In February 1998, the CNP arrested Colombian drug trafficker Jose
Nelson Urrego. Although primarily linked to the Northern Valle
del Cauca drug organization, Urrego also has provided drug
transportation services to the Medellin and Cali cartels.
The fact that the CNP, and other members of Colombia's law
enforcement community, were able and willing to pursue operations
against the drug underworld is a testament to their professionalism and
dedication. The CNP's counterdrug successes have come at a high price.
In 1997, more than 160 CNP personnel died in the line of duty--most of
whom were involved in counterdrug operations.
However, Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela and his associates, who
comprised the most powerful international organized crime group in
history, initially received ridiculously short sentences for their
crimes. In January 1997, his brother, Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela was
sentenced to 10\1/2\ years in prison on drug trafficking charges. As a
result of Colombia's lenient sentencing laws, however, Gilberto may
serve only five years. Miguel, originally sentenced to 9 years, was
later sentenced to 21 years on Colombian charges based on evidence
supplied by the United States Government. With further sentence
reductions, Miguel is expected to serve less than 13 years in prison.
The sentences imposed and actual time to be served are woefully
insufficient and not commensurate with the gravity of the offenses.
Even now, the Rodriguez-Orejuela brothers are able to run part of
their illicit operation from prison cell blocks equipped with private
quarters, telephones, indoor soccer facilities and a private kitchen,
due to Colombia's lax prison system. As a consequence, even though they
are in prison, they remain among the most powerful cocaine traffickers
in the world. Colombia's inability to control their operations fully is
the major factor in the rise of independent Colombian trafficking
groups.
Last year, the Colombian National Police took control of four
maximum security prisons from the Colombian Bureau of Prisons, in an
effort to prevent traffickers from carrying out their operations from
jail. In June 1997, the CNP raided a dozen communications centers in
Bogota and Cali that were being used by the jailed drug lords to manage
operations. Nevertheless, the jailed drug lords remain able to continue
to direct some aspects of their trafficking operations from prison,
albeit with greater difficulty than before the CNP actions.
The dysfunctional Colombian justice system lacks the expertise and
resources necessary to prosecute and incarcerate most criminals.
--In October 1997, a Colombian judge dismissed murder charges against
jailed Cali drug trafficker Ivan Urdinola. Although the judge's
decision is under investigation by Colombian authorities,
Urdinola may be released from prison in 1998. There is clause
in Colombia's new extradition law which states that the law
will not be applied retroactively. This clause ensures that the
Cali drug lords, and other Colombian drug traffickers, will not
face extradition for crimes committed prior to December 17,
1997, the date that the constitutional extradition amendment
became law.
--Colombia's lenient sentencing codes remain intact. These codes,
which permit substantial sentence reductions for surrender,
confession, cooperation, and work/study, continue to allow most
drug traffickers to serve prison sentences that are low by
international standards.
In June 1997, the Government of Colombia approved the creation of
the Aviation Control Program. As of October 1, 1997, all Colombian-
registered aircraft are subject to search and inspection by the CNP.
The CNP systematically identifies all Colombian aircraft by utilizing
tamper-resistant stickers placed throughout the aircraft. Each sticker
has a bar code that, when read, allows the CNP to check the sticker
information with a database of all parts and serial numbers registered
with that aircraft. Each aircraft is subject to search every six months
for illegal alterations to the aircraft and/or illicit drug residue.
The CNP leadership also has taken important steps in recent years
to counter the effects of corruption on their organization. Since the
early 1990's, the CNP has dismissed more than 14,000 police officers
for corruption. The CNP continues to be enthusiastic in its support of
new ``tools'' to root out corruption. One of these important ``tools''
is the program of special units, made up of DEA-trained and vetted
Colombian police officers who continue to work closely with DEA to
conduct sensitive investigations.
We can and will continue to fully identify and build cases against
the leaders of the new criminal groups from Colombia as well as the
resurgent splinter groups of the old Cali syndicate. These criminals
have already moved to make our task more difficult by withdrawing from
positions of vulnerability and maintaining a much lower profile than
their predecessors. A number of initiatives hold promise for success:
--Our Country Team's Flow Reduction Strategy will complement the air
bridge interdiction program by focusing USG resources on those
cocaine transportation and production organizations located
south and east of Colombia's Andes Mountains.
--The U.S. Embassy's Information Analysis/Operations Center (IAOC)
will be increasingly utilized to coordinate and analyze
tactical information regarding the transportation and
production activities of drug trafficking groups active in the
Colombian territories south and east of the Andes Mountains.
The IAOC is comprised of Embassy personnel from the DEA Bogota
Country Office and U.S. Military's Tactical Analysis Team.
Indirect support and staffing also are provided by the Defense
Attache Office and the State Department.
--The special unit program, funded under the Andean Initiative, will
make it possible to convert existing partially vetted units of
the CNP into fully vetted teams. These teams of investigators
will work closely with DEA to conduct drug investigations.
In sum, although significant progress has been made in Colombia on
the drug enforcement front through the efforts of the CNP, the weak and
tainted political and judicial systems within the country continue to
hinder long-term success in the country's continued fight against drug
trafficking. In Mexico, although there appears to be willingness on the
part of the country's leadership to attack the operations of the major
Mexican drug syndicates, progress is slow, and the corruption within
the country's law enforcement institutions will continue to make
success a daunting task.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
hidta
Question. Mr. Constantine, we in Colorado appreciate the help and
support of the DEA and the Justice Department in the operation of the
Rocky Mountain HIDTA. This new high intensity drug trafficking area
designation under General McCaffrey's ONDCP already has had a
significant impact on coordinating law enforcement efforts in targeting
illegal drug trafficking in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
What are your plans this year to expand the DEA's support of the
Rocky Mountain HIDTA and other drug trafficking initiatives in the
West?
Answer. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) covers a three state region (Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) with
each state adapting the HIDTA program to its specific needs based on
local problems and trafficking threats. The Rocky Mountain HIDTA was
authorized and funded as part of the fiscal year 1997 appropriation.
First year funding for federal agencies participating in this HIDTA was
dedicated primarily to the establishment of a joint intelligence
center. DEA has taken the leadership role in establishing this
intelligence center which includes members of numerous federal, state
and local law enforcement agencies within the Rocky Mountain HIDTA
region. The intelligence center, located in the DEA's Denver Division
Office, is currently managed by a DEA supervisor and includes one DEA
Special Agent and Intelligence Analyst.
DEA takes no direct funding from the Rocky Mountain HIDTA; instead,
DEA has encouraged area officials to direct HIDTA funding to state and
local agencies in an effort to provide them with the resources
necessary to engage in joint enforcement programs and task force
operations with DEA, while channeling more of their own manpower,
investigative and equipment support into existing programs. DEA Denver
currently has 43 Special Agents operating in enforcement groups in the
State of Colorado. Although none of these agents are specifically
designated HIDTA agents, each of these agents work on a case-by-case
basis with their state and local counterparts on HIDTA related
investigations.
The DEA Denver Division supports the Rocky Mountain HIDTA through
interaction between our established operational and support groups and
HIDTA participating agencies. Each element in DEA's organizational
structure cooperates across a wide cross section of HIDTA participating
agencies in all of the initiatives established by the Rocky Mountain
HIDTA. In the near future, DEA will be opening a new Post of Duty in
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, consisting of two DEA Special Agents.
These agents will also work closely with other participating agencies
on HIDTA structured initiatives.
DEA played a key role in developing the Rocky Mountain HIDTA
methamphetamine strategy, with a DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge
(ASAC) acting as chairman of the Methamphetamine Investigative Support
Team (MIST). The DEA Denver Clandestine Laboratory Group is the
cornerstone of the Colorado Methamphetamine strategy. The DEA
supervisor and nine Special Agents, who work closely with the Douglas
County Sheriff's Deputy assigned to this group, will support all the
members of the Methamphetamine Investigative Support Team. This support
will include technical and investigative assistance, training and
equipment. The MIST will work to combat the continuing increase in the
number of clandestine laboratories in Colorado.
DEA's Denver Task Force, with six Special Agents and a supervisor,
works with seven state and local officers from five participating
agencies in support of identified HIDTA initiatives. This task force
also works in coordination with three additional local task forces who
receive program funding in furtherance of Rocky Mountain HIDTA
initiatives.
DEA's Denver Transportation Group, includes a DEA supervisor and
five Special Agents who work with seven Denver Police Department
detectives in support of the HIDTA Transportation Initiative. DEA has,
in turn, supported the Denver Police Department's HIDTA Narcotics
Trafficking Initiatives by assigning one Special Agent full-time to
their Major Peddler Unit.
DEA is supporting the Aurora Police Department HIDTA initiatives
through the assignment of two Special Agents full time to their
Metropolitan Gang Task Force. In addition to DEA personnel, this unit
includes representatives from the Aurora Police Department, Denver
Police Department, FBI, and the National Guard. The primary objective
of the task force is to target major gangs and the violence associated
with these groups.
The DEA office in Colorado Springs has a co-located task force
which includes a DEA supervisor, five Special Agents, and six state and
local officers assigned from four HIDTA participating agencies. The
office supports several of the HIDTA initiatives including the Drug
Transportation Initiative and the Gangs/Violence initiative.
DEA's Glenwood Springs Resident Office has a task force comprised
of a DEA supervisor, four Special Agents and seven state and local
officers from four departments, all of which are participating in the
area HIDTA. Again, the office supports several initiatives, including
the Transportation Initiative, the Gangs/Violence Initiative and the
Methamphetamine Initiative. The office also provides support to several
Western Slope departments, including Grand Junction and the Mesa County
Sheriff's Office, in their investigative efforts in support of HIDTA
initiatives. Opening of a proposed DEA Post of Duty for the City of
Grand Junction, Colorado is currently being reviewed by personnel at
DEA Headquarters.
A DEA Post of Duty has officially been approved for Steamboat
Springs, Colorado. Two Special Agents will be assigned to this area to
work with a local, three county, GRAMNET (Grand, Moffat and Routt
County Narcotics Enforcement Team) task force. The Steamboat Springs
Post-of-Duty will open in upcoming months.
The Investigative Support Center (ISC) is presently staffed with a
DEA supervisor, one DEA Special Agent, a DEA Intelligence Analyst and
seven analysts from HIDTA participating agencies. This unit provides
indices checks (e.g., NADDIS, CCIC, TECS, etc.) for HIDTA participating
agencies and, to date, has provided case support to 26 separate HIDTA
investigations. This unit has performed a vital role in providing
investigative support for agencies with previously limited intelligence
capabilities. The ISC has also provided training and specialized
assistance to a number of HIDTA participating agencies.
The DEA Denver Division has provided direct support to the Rocky
Mountain HIDTA training initiative through the provision of
instructors, space, lesson plans and training materials. The expertise
garnered by DEA through years of training has been made available to
HIDTA participating agencies and their members through the teachings of
qualified, experienced DEA instructors.
In sum, the unique quality of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA is that all
investigative efforts include combined federal, state and local
cooperation under HIDTA umbrella initiatives. In the future, DEA will
continue its leadership role in unifying other agencies under the HIDTA
program.
Question. Will additional DEA agents be assigned to Colorado to
work with the Rocky Mountain HIDTA?
Answer. While DEA Special Agents in Colorado are not specifically
designated as HIDTA agents, each of our enforcement groups, whether
full-time or on a case-by-case basis, work with state and local units
who receive HIDTA funding. In fiscal year 1998, our Denver Field
Division received a total of five additional Special Agents. Three of
these agents will be assigned to DEA offices in the State of Utah,
while the remaining two agents will be assigned to DEA's new office in
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, which is slated to open in the near
future. As previously indicated, plans for the opening of an office in
Grand Junction, Colorado are also under review. As is the case in our
existing offices in Colorado and throughout the Denver Field Division,
the new DEA Special Agents assigned to these offices will work on high
profile investigations with local agencies receiving HIDTA funding.
DEA is committed to providing the utmost support to other federal,
state, and local agencies in the fight against drug trafficking. It is
DEA's intent to continue to increase the number of DEA Special Agents
assigned throughout the United States, including those assigned to the
Denver Field Division.
methamphetamine
Question. Mr. Constantine, I know you share my concern about the
growing problem of methamphetamine, especially its dangerous impact in
the Western United States. Just with the past 10 days, the police chief
of Grand Junction, Colorado--Chief Gary Konzak--stated how the grand
valley area is ``in jeopardy'' from methamphetamine.
Last year, the Treasury Subcommittee which I chair, addressed the
methamphetamine problem, with a new ONDCP and the Justice Department
received additional funding for the DEA to combat this problem.
What are the agency's plans this year to increase efforts to fight
methamphetamine?
Will the agency please look into the meth problem in the Grand
Junction area, throughout Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain region
generally, and report back to this committee its findings and
recommendations?
Answer. In answering your question, let me first begin by
addressing the methamphetamine problem from a national perspective and
then move to an explanation of the problem and our efforts within the
State of Colorado and more specifically, in the City of Grand Junction.
National Methamphetamine Perspective
Over the course of the past several years, DEA has been
aggressively addressing the growth of methamphetamine trafficking
across the U.S. through our Methamphetamine Enforcement Initiative.
This initiative has provided the agency with an integrated and
coordinated strategy in support of the National Drug Control Strategy,
and the National Methamphetamine Strategy. It focuses our intelligence
and enforcement efforts against the organized drug syndicates,
independent domestic methamphetamine traffickers, and rogue chemical
companies responsible for the smuggling, production, and distribution
of methamphetamine throughout the U.S. Through our demand reduction
efforts, the training of state and local law enforcement officers, and
our major investigative efforts, we are committed to ensuring that
methamphetamine does not become the ``crack'' cocaine of the 1990's.
The cornerstone of our national investigative strategy is to focus
on attacking the command and control functions of the organized
criminal syndicates that control virtually all of the cocaine, heroin,
and methamphetamine trafficking in the United States today. This task
is accomplished through the extensive use of Title III wire intercepts
against the communications infrastructure of these organizations.
Today, it is estimated that upwards of 80 percent of the available
supply of methamphetamine in the United States is produced by Mexican
organized crime syndicates. The Mexican syndicates' dominance of the
methamphetamine market can largely be attributed to two factors. First,
Mexican organized crime has established access to enormous quantities
of the precursor ephedrine from wholesale sources of supply on the
international market. Second, these criminal groups regularly produce
unprecedented quantities of high-purity methamphetamine in Mexican and
Californian super labs, which is then trafficked to states across the
U.S., including Colorado.
The Amezcua-Contreras Brothers, operating out of Guadalajara,
Mexico, are the world's largest smugglers of ephedrine and clandestine
producers of methamphetamine. The Amezcua Organization obtains large
quantities of precursor ephedrine through contacts in Thailand and
India, which they then use to make methamphetamine for subsequent
distribution to Mexican trafficking groups operating in major U.S.
population centers. The effectiveness of the national investigative
strategy in targeting the methamphetamine trafficking operations of the
Amezcua Organization can be best witnessed in Operation META.
Operation META demonstrated just how extensive the involvement of
the major Mexican trafficking organizations is on this country's
domestic methamphetamine trade. This multi-agency wiretap investigation
targeted drug traffickers associated with the operations of the
Amezcua-Contreras Organization, which was supplying its U.S. cells with
methamphetamine, precursor chemicals, and cocaine.
Drug traffickers along the border, such as those associated with
the Amezcua Organization, have a major impact on the drug trafficking
and violent crime situation throughout the United States. Our Southwest
Border Strategy brings together many federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors' offices in a coordinated effort
to target major drug traffickers operating along the Southwest border
of the United States. Operation META, an OCDETF investigation conducted
as part of this strategy, resulted in more than 100 key arrests.
In addition to the methamphetamine operations of the major Mexican
drug trafficking organizations, in recent years, the United States has
witnessed a rapid expansion in the number of small, independent,
methamphetamine organizations operating throughout the country. The
illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in smaller, ``mom and pop''
operations, which typically produce anywhere from two to three ounces,
to a pound of methamphetamine, can take place anywhere the operator can
set up laboratory equipment to synthesize the product (e.g. motel
rooms, apartment complexes, industrial areas, farms, a neighbor's
house, etc.). The caustic, flammable and explosive chemicals required
by ``cooks'' to produce methamphetamine endanger the lives of not only
the criminals, but law enforcement personnel and other innocent
bystanders as well.
Over the course of the past two years DEA has dedicated significant
agency resources to nationally address the growth of the burgeoning
methamphetamine trade. In fiscal year 1997, we expanded our overall
interdiction and chemical control efforts along the Southwest Border
through an enhancement of 54 Special Agents for the Southwest Border
Initiative. In June 1997, we established a Special Operations Section
to target Mexican methamphetamine command and control operations.
During fiscal year 1997, we also conducted a total of 23 one-week
clandestine laboratory investigative and safety training classes for
state and local law enforcement officers at sites in San Diego,
California, Overland Park, Kansas, and at the FBI Academy/Camp Upshur
in Quantico, Virginia. A total of 914 state and local officers were
trained. A one-time transfer of funds from ONDCP allowed DEA to provide
much needed clandestine laboratory safety equipment (e.g., air
monitors, air purified respirators, fire resistant clothing, etc.) to
each state and local officer completing the course.
We also produced and distributed nationwide a new public awareness
videotape entitled ``Methamphetamine--Trail of Violence.'' A series of
clandestine laboratory awareness posters and two videotapes, one which
details and illustrates the chemicals found in the new ``Nazi'' formula
labs, and another called ``Chemical Time Bombs,'' were also distributed
to clandestine laboratory enforcement teams throughout the U.S. In
fiscal year 1996 and 1997, several of our field divisions held
conferences to educate state and local authorities on the growth and
hazards associated with methamphetamine trafficking, production and
abuse in the United States.
Over the course of fiscal year 1997, DEA made a total of 5,780
arrests for the manufacture and wholesale trafficking of
methamphetamine and seized 1,366 clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories. We also initiated a total of 3,209 methamphetamine cases
and seized 1,175 kilograms of methamphetamine and amphetamine.
In fiscal year 1998, DEA received a resource enhancement of 60
Special Agents and $11.046 million to execute a three-prong approach
for attacking methamphetamine production, trafficking and abuse in the
U.S. This approach entails: (1) increased enforcement to target major
methamphetamine trafficking organizations; (2) hazardous waste removal
and laboratory services; and (3) clandestine laboratory training to DEA
personnel and state, local and foreign law enforcement organizations.
Because of the hazardous nature of the waste produced, clandestine
laboratory sites require professional, costly cleanup services. In
addition to the aforementioned funding, in fiscal year 1998, the COPS
program provided us with a one-time reimbursement of $9.5 million for
state and local clandestine laboratory cleanup and training. This
funding included a total of $5 million for state and local clandestine
cleanup operations and $4.5 million for clandestine laboratory training
for state and local officers. To date, DEA has provided clandestine
laboratory training to over 2,000 state and local officers across the
U.S. With the additional $4.5 million provided to the agency in fiscal
year 1998 through the COPS program, we anticipate training an
additional 1,600 state and local law enforcement officers over the
course of the next two years.
For fiscal year 1999, in an effort to build upon the Southwest
Border Initiative and the National Methamphetamine Strategy, we are
requesting the additional resources necessary to implement a
comprehensive approach for targeting and investigating methamphetamine
trafficking and production. This approach will increase domestic
enforcement efforts; enhance chemical control; expand intelligence
programs; and improve environmental protection. The request includes an
enhancement of 100 Special Agents to target methamphetamine trafficking
in emerging markets and/or producer states.
Methamphetamine in the Rocky Mountain Region and Colorado
Regarding the methamphetamine situation in the Rocky Mountain
Region, and more specifically, within the State of Colorado, nearly
every office within the DEA Denver Field Division reports an alarming
increase in the use and trafficking of methamphetamine in recent years.
Throughout the Denver Field Division's four-state area of
responsibility (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming),
methamphetamine trafficking is controlled primarily by organizations
based in Mexico with distribution cells in both Mexico and California.
Much of the methamphetamine encountered through the Division's
enforcement and interdiction efforts is transported into Colorado from
Southern California and, to a lesser extent, directly from Mexico.
Small domestic clandestine laboratories have increased
significantly throughout the Division as well. During the second
quarter of fiscal year 1998, a total of 59 methamphetamine laboratories
were seized by DEA offices within the Denver Field Division, as
compared to 42 during the second quarter of fiscal year 1997. Most of
these laboratories were ``mom and pop labs,'' capable of producing
small but steady quantities of methamphetamine. With methamphetamine
``recipes'' readily available on the Internet and precursor chemicals
attainable through veterinary supply companies, hardware and discount
stores, high-purity methamphetamine is produced throughout the Rocky
Mountain region with relative ease.
Interstate 70, a major east-west highway connecting the West Coast
to the Midwest and Eastern United States, traverses Colorado from the
Utah border, through Grand Junction and Denver, to the Kansas border.
Consequently, law enforcement officials in the Grand Junction area
report increases in both methamphetamine interdiction seizures and
local methamphetamine distribution.
According to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) statistics,
methamphetamine emergency room incidents in the City of Denver
increased from 31 in 1992, to 106 in 1996. Methamphetamine treatment
admissions increased in the city by 300 percent between 1991 and 1996.
In 1997, preliminary data shows that 18.5 percent of methamphetamine
treatment admissions in Denver were new users.
In 1997, almost 90 percent of methamphetamine users entering
treatment in the City of Denver were Caucasian, and almost one-third
were 25 years of age or younger. According to an ethnographic study by
the University of Colorado School of Medicine, most methamphetamine
smokers are middle to lower class suburbanites who are attempting to
enhance work performance or maintain more than one job.
DEA's Colorado Springs Resident Office (RO) reports that Mexican-
produced methamphetamine continues to pervade Southern Colorado,
exceeding the availability of cocaine in the area. Methamphetamine is
gaining in popularity and has become the drug of choice for many users.
The impact of methamphetamine trafficking in Colorado Springs has been
seen through rising overall crime rates, particularly burglaries,
assaults, and murders. The Colorado Springs Police Department has
identified an organized network of methamphetamine users that has been
known to commit numerous systematic burglaries in order to garner
enough money to purchase the drug.
Our Glenwood Springs RO, which includes the Grand Junction area of
Colorado, reports that methamphetamine is readily available in ounce,
pound and kilogram quantities. Multi-kilogram quantities are regularly
encountered through interdiction efforts on the highway and at the
local bus terminal.
DEA arrest statistics in Colorado reflect the growing impact of
methamphetamine distribution and use throughout the state. In Denver,
methamphetamine accounted for 8.7 percent (38) of all DEA arrests (436)
in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for
12.8 percent (60) of all arrests (468). In fiscal year 1997,
methamphetamine accounted for 19.5 percent (92) of all arrests (471).
During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine
accounted for 20.8 percent (60) of all arrests (288).
A similar trend is evidenced by the growing number of
methamphetamine investigations initiated by DEA in the City of Denver.
Methamphetamine investigations represented 14.77 percent (35) of all
cases initiated by DEA in Denver (237) in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal
year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 15 percent (35)
of all new cases initiated (232). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine
investigations represented 19.8 percent (50) of all cases initiated
(252). During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998
methamphetamine investigations represented 27.9 percent (29) of all
cases initiated (104).
Both the DEA Colorado Springs RO and the Colorado Springs Police
Department report that methamphetamine is the top investigative
priority in Southern Colorado. In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine
accounted for 28.9 percent (35) of all arrests (121) made by the
Colorado Springs RO. In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for
20.9 (18) of all arrests (86). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine
accounted for 27.1 percent (35) of all arrests (129). During the first
two quarters of fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine accounted for 27.6
percent (16) of all arrests (58).
Methamphetamine investigations represented 21.1 percent (11) of all
cases initiated by DEA in Colorado Springs (52) in fiscal year 1995. In
fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 22.4
percent (15) of all new cases initiated (67). In fiscal year 1997,
methamphetamine investigations represented 31.7 percent (26) of all
cases initiated (82). During the first two quarters of fiscal year
1998, methamphetamine investigations represented 45.9 percent (17) of
all cases initiated (37).
Arrest statistics provided by our Glenwood Springs RO reflect a
similar trend. In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine accounted for 7.7
percent (5) of the total arrests (65) made by the Glenwood Springs RO.
In fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine accounted for 20.6 percent (14) of
all arrests (68). In fiscal year 1997, methamphetamine accounted for
22.7 percent (34) of all arrests (150). In the first two quarters of
fiscal year 1998, methamphetamine accounted for 20.9 percent (18) of
all arrests (86).
In fiscal year 1995, methamphetamine investigations represented 25
percent (8) of all cases initiated by DEA in Glenwood Springs (32). In
fiscal year 1996, methamphetamine investigations represented 24.4
percent (11) of all new cases initiated (45). In fiscal year 1997,
methamphetamine investigations represented 25 percent (21) of all cases
initiated (84). During the first two quarters of fiscal year 1998,
methamphetamine investigations represented 21.6 percent (8) of all
cases initiated (37).
The Glenwood Springs RO reports that the vast majority of the
methamphetamine encountered in Western Colorado is transported from
Southern California, to Denver and the Midwestern United States.
Mexican-produced methamphetamine is transported primarily by Mexican
couriers traveling via bus, train, and automobile from California and
Mexico. During the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, the Glenwood
Springs RO was involved in six separate multi-kilogram seizures of
methamphetamine, all of which was destined for points east. Our
Glenwood Springs RO reports that during the second quarter of fiscal
year 1998, more seizures and undercover buys focused on methamphetamine
than in previous quarters. Additionally, current deployments by DEA
Denver's Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) are targeting Mexican
methamphetamine traffickers in Eagle and Garfield Counties in Colorado.
The City of Grand Junction has experienced a significant impact
from the flow of methamphetamine from out-of-state sources. More
frequent and larger quantities of the drug are being encountered in
highway and bus station interdictions, as well as in local
investigations. According to the Grand Junction Police Department,
fourteen search warrants executed since January 1, 1998, resulted in 25
arrests for methamphetamine and weapons charges. Eighty percent of the
investigations currently being pursued by the Grand Junction Police
Department's Narcotic Unit are targeting methamphetamine traffickers.
Of all the investigations being conducted by the Department's General
Detective Bureau, 60 percent are methamphetamine-related. Additionally,
local authorities report an increase in methamphetamine abuse among
local residents. Fully 90 percent of all drug use charges are for
methamphetamine violations.
Recent investigations suggest that Grand Junction may be evolving
into a staging area for distribution of methamphetamine throughout
Colorado. Earlier this year, a DEA Denver MET deployment targeted a
methamphetamine organization, with a California source of supply, who
utilized a Grand Junction hotel room as a distribution center. Another
investigation being conducted by the DEA Glenwood Springs RO involves a
trafficker and money launderer who moved his base of operations from
California to Grand Junction. To date, six pounds of methamphetamine
have been seized in this investigation. Yet another case by the
Glenwood Springs RO began by targeting a local cocaine dealer in Aspen,
Colorado. Subsequent investigation led to the ultimate source of
supply, a Mexican organization in California. One of the group's
distributors, who was arrested with eight pounds of methamphetamine,
operated out of Grand Junction and indicated that he trafficked 100
pounds of methamphetamine per month in the area.
During the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, DEA Special Agents,
in conjunction with Grand Junction Police Officers, made the following
seizures at the Greyhound Bus Station in Grand Junction:
--On January 9, 1998, two Mexican brothers in this country illegally
were found to be carrying a total of approximately seven pounds
of methamphetamine. They both stated that they were en route
from Los Angeles to Topeka, Kansas.
--On January 14, 1998, a passenger was found to be carrying
approximately ten pounds of methamphetamine. The passenger
stated that he was traveling from San Francisco, California, to
Denver.
--On January 30, 1998, a passenger was found to be carrying
approximately five pounds of methamphetamine. The passenger
claimed to be traveling from Los Angeles to Marshall, Iowa.
--On February 12, 1998, two individuals were found to be carrying
just over five pounds of methamphetamine. The passengers stated
that they were traveling from Anaheim, California, to Denver.
Operation Pipeline highway interdiction efforts have also netted
significant methamphetamine seizures throughout the State of Colorado.
For example, on February 6, 1998, the Colorado State Police seized
3,447 grams of methamphetamine during a highway stop in Morgan County,
Colorado. The driver had a California identification card, but claimed
to be coming from Mesa, Arizona. He was on record for his involvement
in another DEA case in Utah. Additionally, INS records indicate that he
was deported from El Paso, Texas, to Mexico in 1994.
On March 25, 1998, during a highway interdiction stop outside
Glenwood Springs, almost 47 pounds of amphetamine was discovered in a
vehicle bearing California plates. The driver and the passenger claimed
that they were going to Sioux City, Iowa. Three days later, on March
28, 1998, another highway interdiction stop led to the seizure of six
pounds of methamphetamine. The vehicle had California license plates
and the driver had a California license. It was determined that the
passenger of the vehicle, who was in the United States illegally, was a
member of the same organization responsible for the 47 pound seizure
three days prior. DEA Special Agents conducted a controlled delivery of
the six pounds of methamphetamine, which was destined for Greeley,
Colorado.
Recommendations
In the years to come, DEA will continue to address the threat posed
by domestic and international methamphetamine trafficking through
aggressive law enforcement initiatives, intelligence collection and
dissemination, federal, state and local training programs, and demand
reduction initiatives. Within the Rocky Mountain Division, we will
support regional task forces established with other federal, state and
local agencies, sharing resources to present a unified front in
attacking the growing regional methamphetamine traffic.
In the State of Colorado, we will continue to develop our
cooperative statewide methamphetamine strategy in an effort to combat
the growing problems posed by area methamphetamine trafficking. This
strategy includes HIDTA coordinated investigations in the areas of
Intelligence, the Southwest Border, Gang/Drug-related Violence,
Clandestine Laboratories, and Interdiction. The strategy also includes
efforts to improve regional demand reduction activities and heighten
public awareness regarding the dangers of methamphetamine use.
The methamphetamine strategy will focus our investigative efforts
against the command and control operations of the major organized crime
syndicates thereby working to significantly impact the drug trafficking
situation in the State of Colorado. We will also continue our plan for
office expansion throughout the state, beginning with the opening of a
two-agent Post-of-Duty in the City of Steamboat Springs, and moving on
to other areas such as Grand Junction, which are replete with
methamphetamine trafficking and abuse.
In the end, we as a nation must continue our efforts in the
methamphetamine arena until the specter of the national methamphetamine
crisis diminishes and the safety and well being of our communities and
children are restored.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
drug certification
Question. Administrator Constantine, last year we spoke at length
about the Administration's certification of performance in
counternarcotics efforts. This year the President certified Mexico as
cooperating, and allowed Colombia a certification based on U.S.
national interests.
Were you consulted on these certifications, and were you in
agreement with all of them?
Answer. During the course of the drug certification process, I
provided the Attorney General with DEA's factual assessment of the drug
enforcement situation in the various countries being evaluated for
certification purposes. My comments are limited to law enforcement
issues, and I do not make a recommendation as to any country. The
Attorney General then makes her recommendation to the Department of
State.
Question. How much progress is Mexico really making? Does this
improvement extend to areas at the border, like Baja California, where
most honest law enforcement officials have been killed by the drug
cartels?
Answer. The Government of Mexico has made some progress by
reconstituting its drug law enforcement infrastructure since the
disclosure of the scandalous drug corruption of General Gutierrez-
Rebollo last year. The Mexican Government also must be credited with
placing the law enforcement pressure on the Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
organization that eventually led to the death of Amado Carrillo-Fuentes
during plastic surgery to alter his appearance. Despite his death, his
organization continues to operate and a reign of violence was unleashed
last summer as his would-be successors battled for control of the
organization.
Some progress also has been made in the development of law
enforcement cases. For example, former Jalisco state Governor Flavio
Romero de Velasco was jailed on January 24, 1998, in connection with
his ties to drug lords Rigoberto Gaxiola Medina and Jorge Abrego Reyna
Castro. Romero is accused of laundering drug money, accepting bribes,
and providing a safe haven for drug lords in his western state between
1977 and 1983.
While there have been some positive developments in U.S.-Mexican
drug law enforcement cooperation, unfortunately, the Government of
Mexico has made very little progress in the apprehension of known
syndicate leaders who dominate the drug trade in Mexico and control a
substantial share of the wholesale cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine
markets in the United States. There have been a number of procedural
changes as the Mexican Government restructures its institutions charged
with enforcing the drug laws. New personnel have been brought in to
replace corrupt or ineffective officials. However these changes have
yet to produce significant results. The ultimate test of any progress
is measured by apprehending the leadership and bringing them to
justice. This is, of course, a challenge for both our countries, as
more traffickers operate on both sides of the border. The Arellano-
Felix brothers, for instance, are known to have traveled to the United
States.
One promising program for cooperative law enforcement with the
Government of Mexico was a proposed series of Bilateral Border Task
Forces (BTF's). In 1995, the United States and the Government of Mexico
developed the concept of the BTF's, which, as envisioned, were to be
located in Mexico, at locations along the U.S.-Mexican border. The main
objective of these task forces was to target the major Mexican drug
trafficking organizations and their command and control centers
operating at various points along the border. The BTF's were to be
composed of Mexican counternarcotics agents from the now disbanded
National Counter-Drug Institute (INCD), along with United States law
enforcement agents from the DEA, FBI, and U.S. Customs Service. The
task forces were to be physically located in Mexico, with United States
law enforcement agents traveling to Mexico on a daily basis, from home
offices in the United States. In concept, the goal of these task forces
was for the United States ``commuter'' agents to bring their Mexican
counterparts in the BTF's timely information from joint drug
investigations in the United States.
Regretfully, the BTF's have yet to achieve its full potential, due
in large part, to the lack of sustained financial support for the
program by the Government of Mexico. DEA continues to provide both
extensive financial resources and intensive training to the Mexican
vetted units, but there have been few significant arrests, drug
seizures, or intelligence leads developed by these vetted units.
The willingness of major Mexican trafficking organizations to
murder and intimidate witnesses and public officials has been a key
factor in the threat they pose to both the United States and Mexico
today. Drug traffickers continue their brazen attacks against both the
United States and Mexican law enforcement officials and their sources
of information.
Over the past two years, a number of officials in or from Tijuana
have been murdered in what are believed to be drug-related killings.
However, it is an overstatement to say that ``most honest law
enforcement officials in Baja California have been killed by drug
cartels.'' The motivation behind the deaths of these officials is not
always clear. While some were likely killed in retaliation for the
actions they were taking against major trafficking organizations,
others are suspected of working in collusion with traffickers and are
believed to have been killed as a result of trying to work both sides.
Unfortunately, few of these murders have been solved, resulting in less
confidence in law enforcement's capability and resolve to tackle the
major drug organizations.
The violent activities of the Mexican Drug Syndicates are not
limited to Baja California, but are common all along the United States/
Mexico border. Often this violence involves rival drug organizations
and/or innocent bystanders. For example, in the State of Chihuahua,
since the July 1997, death of major drug lord Amado Carrillo-Fuentes, a
battle for control of the lucrative Juarez drug smuggling corridor has
ensued. Over 50 people have been killed in Juarez as a result of this
power struggle. The violence associated with the competing groups was
epitomized in a gangland style machine-gun shooting at the Max Fin
Restaurant in Juarez in August 1997. Six drug traffickers and two
innocent bystanders were killed in that incident.
The Government of Mexico is attempting to build a reliable civilian
law enforcement agency to replace the former anti-drug agency, INCD,
which had been seriously corrupted at virtually every level. The new
agency is called FEADS, Special Prosecuting Office for Crimes Against
Health. The Organized Crime Unit (OCU), operating in the FEADS
headquarters in Mexico City, was set up in 1997 pursuant to the
Organized Crime Law passed in 1996. The DEA has provided assistance to
the OCU in the development of personnel selection systems and have
provided extensive narcotics enforcement training to the new OCU
agents.
Although reconstitution of law enforcement institutions is under
way all across Mexico, this is a difficult and lengthy process that may
take decades. Several programs have been initiated, but the
institution-building process is still in its infancy. There are now
some individuals and small organizations with whom we are able to
interact on specific cases. We limit this exchange, however, to
individual cases when we are sure the information would not put our
agents or sources of information at risk.
The problems of establishing a corruption-free law enforcement
infrastructure are not insurmountable. However, the need for sound law
enforcement institutions in Mexico is urgent because the trafficking
organizations are getting more powerful every year. The only effective
law enforcement strategy is to bring these criminals to justice and
ensure that they are punished in a manner commensurate with their
vicious acts.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. The subcommittee stands in recess until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., when we will hear testimony from the
Secretary of Commerce.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., Tuesday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
March 4.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:57 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, and Hollings.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. DALEY, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
W. SCOTT GOULD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ADMINISTRATION
MARK E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
Secretary Daley's summary statement
Senator Gregg. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being early. I am not going to take any
time for an opening statement, so let's go right to the
Secretary to see what he has to say. I understand Senator
Hollings is coming, but he said he is running a little late,
and we should start.
Secretary Daley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
present the President's 1999 budget request for the Department
of Commerce. Not since Senator McClellan sat in your seat, and
C.R. Smith, the 18th Commerce Secretary sat in mine, has a
President submitted a balanced budget. So I am extremely
delighted to be part of this new era.
This is the first budget that I have had the opportunity to
really participate in putting together.
So I think as I stated last year to you, I believe strongly
that we must hold every position and program to a stern test:
is it the most efficient and cost-effective way to get the job
done. And I believe this budget reflects that.
Economic growth
Our request for $4.9 billion ensures we continue to help
grow the economy without growing ourselves, and at the same
time investing in areas that our strategic plan has identified
as most important for the next century. The request is a $701
million increase, or 16.7 percent over the 1998. Two-thirds of
that is for the 2000 census. Without that census, the increase
would be 5.6 percent.
Let me highlight what is new in four strategic areas,
beginning with economic infrastructure and trade in particular.
I had the opportunity 2 weeks ago to visit Asia, and obviously
our trade deficit with Asia will rise because of the economic
difficulties in Asia right now. I tried to be very frank with
our friends in Asia, and stated that there is no quicker way to
undermine support to help them recover than to see either new
trade barriers or foot dragging on prior commitments.
Trade deficit
I made it clear that this administration and the Congress
must know that the increase in our trade deficit is not due to
such practices. With this in mind, our budget request
strengthens efforts to insure that other countries are
complying with trade laws. This includes expanding our trade
compliance activities, including increasing staff to meet our
new responsibilities under the Uruguay round for enforcement of
antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
At the same time we want to expand our trade promotion.
Last year, our advocacy helped American firms with 60
contracts, together worth about $18 billion. Even so, we are
still outmanned and outgunned by several of our key
competitors.
I refer you to chart 1, Mr. Chairman, which is attached to
my statement. This compares what countries spend in
nonfinancing export promotion programs which are basically
those activities that we do at Commerce. For every 3 cents
which we spend, Japan and Germany spend 5, the United Kingdom,
7, France 18, and Canada 33 cents. This is per $1,000 of GDP.
Chart 2 looks at the relative staffing levels for export
promotion, per $1 billion of GDP. Again, we are among the
lowest. Our competitors are investing vastly more than we do.
We do, however, accomplish more with less. But if these
disparities persist, we risk losing sales and contracts in
emerging markets around the world. For that reason, we want to
add a small number of staff overseas for our commercial service
offices.
Let me also mention that the President wants to help
communities and workers adversely affected, whether it is by
trade, technology, or other factors. Focusing on trade,
specifically, we do propose $250 million over 5 years to help
these communities as part of a new initiative under the
Economic Development Administration.
Decennial census
Second, the census is the most important job which we will
undertake in this Department over the next 3 years, one of the
most important undertakings which the Government can take.
President Clinton has directed me to produce the most
efficient, cost effective, and clearly the most accurate census
in the history of our Nation. A total of $856 million is
budgeted, which is an increase of $466 million. The staff will
increase by 5,500 in 1999. By any measure, the census is a
massive and complex undertaking. We need to make preparations
to count more than one-quarter of 1 billion people who do not
readily respond to Government questionnaires. We need to
complete the address list for 118 million residences, get
computers operational, and finalize our statistical design.
Finally, we will have to fill at least 260,000 related jobs
at the peak in 2000. For the 1990 census, we found we had to
recruit 10 people for every 1 that was actually employed. Some
people we recruit do not show up for employment tests, some
people who pass the test don't come for training, and some who
pass the tests and training do not show up to work. There is a
high turnover, as you can imagine, of those who are employed.
And all this is going on in an economy where we have more jobs
than we have people available.
Census sampling
Our request assumes the use of sampling, since we remain
firmly committed to it. I do recognize that there is a great
difference on the Hill regarding this issue. So we have
included $36 million to keep the option for a nonsampled
census. But in our view, without sampling, costs will go way
up, and accuracy way down.
Third, with regards to technology, innovations have created
new industries and transformed existing ones. But as the keeper
of critical economic data, we are straining to keep up.
upgrading Statistics
Our industry classifications were developed when Franklin
Roosevelt was President, and our current measures of poverty
were developed at about the same time Senator Glenn first
visited space. As he revisits space, we would like to revisit
these numbers.
So we are requesting $57 million to upgrade our Nation's
statistics. We are requesting an additional $141 million for
several ongoing initiatives across the Department to promote
cutting edge innovations.
For example, next year we will start constructing an
advanced measurement laboratory in Gaithersburg. We have a
small request of $2.3 million, but it is an important one, we
believe, if we want to expand the very successful Baldrige
awards into both health care and education.
Fourth, we will increase our investments in several
sustainable development areas, seeking an additional $123
million for NOAA. The loss of life and property damage caused
by El Nino is devastating. We cannot prevent the bad weather,
but we can predict it so that communities and businesses can
better prepare themselves. We predicted that El Nino would be
as devastating as it has been 6 months in advance, better than
it has ever been done before.
I refer you at this time, Mr. Chairman, to chart No. 3. We
would like to increase average lead time for flash flood
warnings to 42 minutes, which would be up 18 minutes from 1994.
In chart 4, we want to increase average lead time for tornado
warnings to 11 minutes, which is up 6 minutes from 1994.
We already have made great strides and this saves money as
well. For example, in the last 4 years, we have become 25
percent more accurate at predicting where hurricanes will
strike. And for each mile of coast line that does not need to
be evacuated, we save at least $1 million.
Natural disaster initiative
Just yesterday I announced a 5-year, $305 million
initiative to help communities better prepare for and recover
from natural disasters. This is one example of how we can pull
together the incredible resources of this Department, working
more effectively by trying to work closer together.
Management review
Our budget request also will fully fund the recommendations
of our management review of the National Weather Service, which
Gen. Jack Kelly oversaw, who is now the new Director of the
National Weather Service. His management challenge is daunting,
but I do have confidence in him and his new team's ability to
deliver.
We also are requesting an additional $35 million to better
manage marine fisheries and $22 million to assess pollution
runoff problems. Many of you may recall the terrible pfiesteria
outbreak in the Chesapeake Bay region, and this is exactly the
sort of problem which we plan to address.
Let me close on this, Mr. Chairman: last year you had a
number of concerns which I promised to address. I said I would
reduce the number of political positions by 100, and we have
done that. I said we would address longstanding security
issues, and we have done that, cutting the number of current
security clearances by more than one-third, with many more to
come. I also said that we would reform the Advanced Technology
Program and the Minority Business Development Administration,
and I believe strongly that we have made substantial progress
in both of those areas.
Last year you asked me many questions regarding trade
missions. One year later, after putting new guidelines in place
and visiting 21 countries, I can say that when the American
Government stands behind our businesses, we do have tremendous
impact.
Last year our trade missions alone brought billions of
dollars in new business to American firms and workers. It has
been a most productive year that would not have been possible
without your support and the support of this entire committee.
prepared statement
I thank you and look forward to an even more successful
year as we get into 1999, and I look forward to any questions
that you or the members may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William M. Daley
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to give a report on our successes of the past
year at the Department of Commerce and to present our $4.9 billion
budget request for fiscal year 1999.
But even before I begin my report and discuss my proposal for the
fiscal year 1999 budget, I want you to know what a pleasure it is to be
part of a truly historic effort to bring the first balanced budget
request before the Congress since C.R. Smith, the 18th Secretary of
Commerce. As the 32nd Secretary of Commerce, I have worked hard to
assure we are doing more with less, while still providing key
investments to help the nation prepare for the next century.
Last year, I promised several actions to improve the management and
operations of the Department and to respond to past criticisms. I'm
pleased to report that we have:
--Reduced political staffing at the Department by the 100 positions
that I promised. Our new ceiling of 156 will be maintained.
--Revised our trade mission criteria to assure open selection of
participating companies. Through the efforts of our Advocacy
Center, we supported $6.8 billion in U.S. content exports in
fiscal year 1997.
--Addressed long standing security issues throughout the Department,
in response to the President's national security review.
Security clearances have been reduced by 27 percent. I am
appointing a Deputy Assistant Secretary, who will report
directly to the CFO to head our new efforts. I will be
reorganizing many existing security offices within the
Departmental structure and increasing overall security
resources by 25 percent.
--Moved aggressively to address issues on the IG's top ten list of
weaknesses. Four have been dropped from the IG's most recent
list, including NOAA satellite programs, the National Marine
Fisheries Service Seafood Inspection Performance-Based
Organization (PBO), the NOAA Vessel Buyout Program and the
Advanced Technology Program's (ATP) commercial pricing and
incremental funding.
--Made progress on several remaining weaknesses identified by the IG,
including reforming the NWS based on General Kelly's study,
NIST's capital improvements facilities program, and
Departmental management of procurement deficiencies,
information technology, property management and oversight
functions, and financial management systems.
fiscal year 1999 budget
The fiscal year 1999 budget I'm presenting is $4.9 billion, $701
million over fiscal year 1998 and a 16.7 percent increase. Fully two-
thirds of the increase funds the costs of the 2000 Census. Without the
Census, our budget increases by 5.6 percent, to cover inflation and key
investment programs that I will describe in a minute.
The Department has not set off on a path of growth--we continue to
be the smallest cabinet agency and have 3,300 fewer employees on board
today than at the start of this administration. Setting aside the
Patent Office staffing, which is paid for by fees, and the Decennial
Census, we will not grow overall in employment through the end of
fiscal year 1999.
Our Strategic Plan, submitted last September under the provisions
of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), focuses on three
themes: economic infrastructure; science/technology/information; and
resource and asset management and stewardship. The materials I have
submitted to support this budget--our Annual Performance Plan, our
Budget-in-Brief, and bureau budget justifications--build from the plan.
Performance measures in each document provide the annual slice of
outcomes we anticipate will occur with the funding of the budget
request.
Through our plans, we are helping to grow the economy, without
growing ourselves. We may be small, but we will keep doing the big work
that will expand opportunities for American workers and American
businesses. If you look at how American corporations have done well in
the last decade--they got leaner. But they also invested in new
products and factories that are their future.
So, this budget manages in a way that invests in our future. Our
future is trade; it is making government work better in a new economy,
where technology is the engine for growth; it is fostering what we call
sustainable development; and it is conducting the best Census ever.
economic infrastructure
First is the area of trade. The President talked at length about
this in his State of the Union address. Today record high exports
account for fully one-third of our economic growth. The President wants
to keep it that way. Government-wide, we will be strengthening trade
advocacy, trade promotion, and the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee.
In fiscal year 1999, ITA's budget will allow us to: provide
advocacy support to U.S. firms for 700 overseas projects, with a total
project value of $145 billion. Gross exports derived from advocacy will
reach $12 billion; create a minimum of 10,500 New-to-Export firms and
36,800 New-to-Market firms; increase the number of firms receiving
export assistance through the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service from
11,500 to 14,000; and review 15 more applications for free trade zones
to support an increase of 25,000 jobs.
Let me highlight these changes in outputs proposed in our fiscal
year 1999 budget with an example of the work of our U.S. Export
Assistance Centers (USEAC). The Deep South Bowling Pro Shop, Inc., has
increased its international sales from $75,000 in 1995 to $850,000 in
1996. By seven months into 1997, Deep South Bowling had exceeded 1996
sales and had entered five international markets. Since March 1996, the
Delta USEAC has been providing trade statistics, trade leads, contacts,
and market research and trade finance services to Deep South Bowling.
With the advice of the Delta USEAC, the company has also implemented a
new marketing tool--an Internet website--that has generated a
tremendous response, with approximately 35 percent of all inquiries
originating outside the United Sates. These types of experiences are
repeated each working day through out the country.
Likewise, we will move to provide for compliance with our trade
laws by: expanding the Trade Compliance Center's activities and
developing a database for use in monitoring compliance; increasing
staff to initiate 130 Antidumping/Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD) Sunset
Reviews; implementing the National Defense Authorization Act of 1988,
Chemical Weapons Convention, the Fastener Quality Act, encryption
controls, and preventive enforcement to stop illegal shipments before
they reach their destination; and decreasing export licensing
processing time from 35 days in fiscal year 1997 to 33 days in fiscal
year 1999; and commodity classifications from 25 days in fiscal year
1997 to 20 days in fiscal year 1999.
At the same time, the President knows that some workers and
communities have not shared in the benefits of trade. As he said in his
State of the Union message, we help communities in a special way when
their military base closes. So, we propose $250 million, over five
years, to help communities adjust as part of a brand new Economic
Development Administration program. The new program will operate under
existing authorities used successfully under EDA's Defense program over
the past five years.
Let me give you an example of the type of results we might expect
from the trade impacted communities program based on the Defense
program results. In September, 1994, EDA provided $750,000, with
$250,000 in local funds, to establish a $1 million Revolving Loan Fund
to the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of governments to provide
capital for business development loans to assist in recovery from the
effects of the Charleston Naval Base complex closure that was
identified in BRAC 93. This fund has been very successful; to date it
has leveraged $12.6 million in private sector dollars, and created or
saved 591 jobs. An additional 906 jobs are projected to be created over
the next 3 years.
By the way, I want to note here what a fine job EDA has done to
seek new ways to meet the requirements of GPRA. Studies completed for
EDA by Rutgers University provide the basis from which we project that
EDA's fiscal year 1999 public works investments could produce 49,000
new jobs over the next nine years--at an average cost of around $3,000
per job. They will also leverage private investment of $1 billion. We
are looking for ways throughout the Department to include in our budget
and Annual Performance Plan measures that let Congress and the American
public know what the funds we seek will produce.
Our support for Minority Business remains strong, and we will be
adjusting its programs under new leadership this year. In fiscal year
1999, the $28 million requested will allow MBDA to assist in obtaining
more than 900 contracts, valued at $600 million, for assisted
companies. We will broaden and expand the scope of business assistance
which MBDA offers by developing an MBDA Intranet; hiring a Chief
Information Officer; establishing an interagency Minority Business
Council; initiating more collaborative efforts with community, state
and federal agencies, including SBA; and maintaining an electronic
process to match business opportunities with minority-owned businesses.
science, technology, and information
Second, we will invest more to make government work better in our
new economy. Technological change has created dynamic new industries
and transformed existing ones. We also have seen innovations in
government. Yet as the keeper of the critical economic data, we are
straining to keep up.
For example, the discrepancy between the government's product-side
(GDP) and income-side (GDI) measures prevents an accurate assessment of
the Nation's productivity and our ability to sustain the current level
of economic expansion without renewing inflationary pressures. And our
industry classifications were developed more than 60 years ago. Our
current measures of poverty were developed when John Kennedy was
President. To address these problems we will invest $57 million to
upgrade our nation's statistics. This request includes:
--Improving our measure of Gross Domestic Product and other key
economic statistics by better monitoring of industries, goods,
and services, especially in rapidly growing sectors such as
services and computers.
--Updating income and poverty measurement to incorporate the now
substantial non-cash programs such as food stamps and housing
assistance, and tax changes such as the earned income tax
credit.
--Expanding the American Community Survey, a major statistical tool
of the future, from testing and evaluation to a more robust
level of data collection (from 9 to 37 sites) in preparation
for comparisons with Census 2000 data.
--Incorporating the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) into all Census Bureau economic data, including
releasing over 200 reports from the 1997 Economic Census in the
new format and converting 70 percent of all surveys to NAICS.
Technological change has been responsible for as much as half of
the economic growth in the United States in the last 50 years. You can
see the growth-inducing power of technology even at the level of
individual firms. A Commerce Department analysis shows that firms using
advanced technologies are more productive and profitable, pay higher
wages and increase employment more rapidly than firms that do not.
The evidence is convincing. At the macroeconomic level, the
industry level, and the firm level, technology is the engine of
economic growth. And the so-called enabling technologies--such as mass
production, machine numerical control, and the transistor--have been
powerful engines of growth.
The Department will continue to invest in several high impact
technology initiatives that will help American firms adopt technologies
to grow faster, export more, pay higher wages and hire more people. An
additional $141 million is requested for these efforts.
For the Advanced Technology Program, we are requesting $260 million
total. We will continue to strengthen this program while living within
the limitations on new programs that Congress has provided. We propose
to grow the program to $399 million over the next five years, and we
continue to believe that ATP is fulfilling its mission to promote and
enable innovative industrial R&D as a driver for the Nation's economy.
We have strong evidence of this in a recent analysis of more than 200
ATP projects that shows that the program has stimulated and accelerated
the pace of technology development, and is enabling significant
technological breakthroughs, not just simple incremental advances.
Catalyzed by this work, industry already has identified more than 1,000
potential applications for these technologies, many offering dramatic
improvements over existing technology.
We appreciate the inclusion of significant construction funds for
NIST in the fiscal year 1998 budget, and have included $40 million of a
total of $218 million needed over 44 months for the construction of the
Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML) in Gaithersburg. We've asked for
$115 million in advanced appropriations for AML construction, and want
to work with you to assure approval of funding in a cost effective
manner this year. We have the most talented scientists in the world,
and they need world-class laboratories.
One such scientist is Dr. William Phillips of NIST. He was awarded
the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for his pioneering research in laser
cooling of atoms. His exceptional work highlights a key role of
Commerce in pushing the limits of measurement science and laying the
foundations for the basic measurement technology support required by
U.S. science and industry. His research may lead to dramatically
improved measurements of time and length, which are likely to be needed
by U.S. industry in the development of advanced technology in the next
century.
I'd also like to offer one more example of the critical importance
of our technology programs. By catalyzing innovation in enabling
technologies and strengthening essential measurement and standards
capabilities, we provide two fundamental ingredients in the complex
recipe for technology-led economic growth. However, we do not overlook
another key ingredient--the capacity of the Nation's smaller firms to
grow, create jobs, and improve the economy. Through the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership network, we assist the Nation's smaller
manufacturers in adopting new technologies and improving their business
practices.
The budget for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program
actually reflects a slight reduction as MEP Centers increase their
matching share of operating costs. However, we will be supporting
operations at the same number of centers, and expect to reach 30,000
companies through MEP, increasing sales for those companies by $389
million. MEP's successes are built one firm at a time.
For instance: a comprehensive evaluation by the California
Manufacturing Technology Center, affiliated with the NIST MEP, helped
A&R Tarpaulins, a 17-person company in Fontana, California, to increase
sales by two-thirds--about $600,000--and to halve its inventory costs.
To accommodate continued growth, this minority-owned manufacturer of
truck cover systems and industrial fabrics also added seven new
employees to its payroll.
A lot of creative work is being done in healthcare and education.
We need to recognize and promote improvements in productivity and
effectiveness in these sectors, that are so fundamentally important to
our society, using the Baldrige Award approach. Both the education and
healthcare sectors say they want to share in these successful
techniques. The Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award--which endowed the business award with more than $10 million when
it began in 1987--has committed to raise $15 million for healthcare and
education awards if the Federal government does its share. The time is
ripe, and we are requesting $2.3 million to do it.
Protecting intellectual property so that Americans reap the benefit
of their efforts is of critical importance to me as well. The budget
for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) increases by $95 million, all
funded through fees, in fiscal year 1999. PTO will increase employment
by 830 FTE, with total employment rising to 6,358 FTE. PTO will use the
increased staffing to immediately address growing workloads. By the end
of fiscal year 1999, PTO will process 75 percent of all patent
inventions within 12 months, for an average cycle time of 13.8 months,
and will provide trademark applicants a three month turnaround on first
action notices. These increases allow PTO to put the maximum effort
feasible into patent and trademark production. Investments in
automation and reengineering will yield electronic receipt of trademark
applications in fiscal year 1999 and processing of trademark applicants
in 2002; of international patent applications in 2000, and of all
patent applications in 2003. To secure these improvements, and with the
expiration of the PTO surcharge at the end of fiscal year 1998, the
Administration proposes to maintain patent fees at current levels while
forgoing CPI increases this fall and next fall. This will provide
consistent fees for the immediate future, and allows $116 million to be
returned to the Treasury in fiscal year 1999 to support a balanced
Federal budget.
Commerce is also a leader in promoting an advanced
telecommunications structure in America. Our Information Infrastructure
Grants program will continue at about the fiscal year 1998 level of $22
million but will increase the number of model programs demonstrated
from 332 to 382. Additionally this year we will provide new funding to
help public broadcasting stations keep pace as the industry converts to
digital equipment. Nation-wide coverage for public broadcast recipients
will be maintained at 95 percent.
sustainable development
Third, we will invest in several sustainable development areas.
This goal provides the effective management and stewardship of our
Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities. Our investments in sustainable development are intended
to make sure our environment is healthy; that we have the best weather
service on earth; and that all Americans are helped should disaster
strike.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
represents 43 percent of the Department's budget; and has the biggest
increase this year, outside of the Census Bureau, of $123 million. In
large measure, the increase represents the costs of the next weather
satellites that we must procure to provide continuous polar-orbiting
and geostationary coverage in the future. But I would like to highlight
some of the other significant work going on within NOAA that supports
our plans in Commerce and greatly benefits the Nation.
Weather is not just an environmental issue--it is a major economic
factor. At least one trillion dollars of our economy is weather
sensitive. For example, the problems caused by El Nino this year are
apparent on both coasts. Continued advances in science since the last
El Nino in 1982 allowed NOAA to successfully forecast, six months in
advance, the 1997/1998 El Nino, one of the biggest meteorological
events of this century. They have been working with other agencies that
have El Nino response and emergency preparedness responsibilities,
including FEMA, AID, and state and local authorities, to provide
advance notice to the public to help reduce loss of life and property.
Our forecasts are important to many sectors of the economy, helping
water resource managers, agricultural decision-makers, energy managers,
state and local emergency planners to plan more efficiently.
In addition to our El Nino research and forecasting, a fundamental
responsibility NOAA has is understanding global carbon dioxide,
greenhouse gas trends, and other trends that have great impact on
sustainable development issues. We are working hard to ensure effective
communications of the state of this science to policy-makers worldwide.
In 1997, Dr. Dan Albritton of our Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder,
served as science advisor to the U.S. delegation at the Kyoto
Conference on Climate Change. In this role, he ensured the U.S.
delegation had full access to the best available scientific
understandings of climate change in their negotiation of the Kyoto
Protocol. An increase of $4 million is requested to continue to improve
our understanding of climate and air quality.
We are increasing the funding for National Weather Service (NWS)
operations by $28 million and $17 million for operation of new
technology. This will fully fund the recommendations of my management
review of NWS to assure the best quality weather services in the World.
I announced a new Director for the National Weather Service two weeks
ago. General Jack Kelly, former head of the Defense Weather Service and
leader of the management review, will assume his duties shortly. We
also will put in place a Chief Financial Officer for NWS. As part of my
Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI), the Weather Service will
expand efforts to improve flood forecasting, as was done in the Pacific
Northwest this past year. The Seattle Times praised them with the
headline: ``NWS Forecasters Hit Bulls-Eye Twice.'' Other aspects of our
NDRI include efforts in NIST to make buildings and utility lines more
resistant to natural disasters. And we will use EDA to reduce the
response time to communities or regions seeking assistance after a
disaster. This initiative brings together the many parts of Commerce
that help build disaster-assistance jobs and communities.
However, we still have some work to do in this area. While the
hardware procurement for the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing
System (AWIPS) is underway and systems are working well, I cannot
certify that I have a satisfactory program that I can deliver to you
for $550 million at this point. I am reviewing my options, and have
asked our CFO to keep you advised of our actions at each step along the
way. We are verifying all costs using a contractor, and NOAA is
providing the day to day management that the AWIPS program deserves.
Our sustainable development initiative will provide an increase of
$35 million in our fisheries programs. With these increased resources,
NOAA will be able to assess 79 percent of the 231 identified fish
stocks and 27 our of 39 Fishery Management Plans will have access
controls implemented. We will develop 25 recovery plans for depleted
marine mammals and endangered species, and we expect to see
improvements for some 15 species next year. Further, a portion of these
funds will continue restoration of West Coast salmon stocks, a
Presidential priority, through multi-agency recovery programs and
coordination with private land owners.
The President's budget includes $22 million for the Clean Water
Initiative. These funds provide the necessary resources to meet both
the scientific and management needs to address polluted run-off, the
major source of pollution in coastal waters today. Polluted run-off
problems can be seen everywhere including harmful algal blooms,
pfiesteria, red and brown tides, as well as hypoxia in the Gulf of
Mexico. The consequences of polluted run-off are significant for the
national economy. Last year, for example, in the Chesapeake Bay, $40
million was lost to the local economy because of the pfiesteria
outbreak. It is estimated that over $1 billion has been lost during the
past decade because of harmful algal blooms. Of the $22 million, $12
million is included in the Coastal Zone Management program to support
state efforts to address polluted run-off; $9 million is for scientific
research and monitoring of harmful algal blooms, including pfiesteria;
and $1 million is to address toxic pollution through the Coastal
Resource Coordinators program.
Though I am describing our fiscal year 1999 budget request, I would
like to note an important initiative the Department is involved with in
1998 that links to our fiscal year 1999 budget request. As part of the
United Nations-designated 1998 Year of the Ocean, Commerce is
continuing its commitment to the health and sustainability of our
oceans. I am proud to say that I am co-leading, with Secretary Dalton
of the United States Navy, the Federal government's efforts in this
important area. In particular, NOAA is focusing its efforts on
improving the quality of coastal waters, protecting habitat for marine
resources, understanding and predicting the role of the oceans as a
driver of global climate, making marine transportation safer and more
efficient, and building awareness of the importance of oceans in our
daily lives. Our fiscal year 1999 efforts will build on this
foundation.
Finally, for NOAA, I want to point out that we are seeking to
resolve the long-standing problem of providing adequate ship time to
conduct NOAA's missions. Funds are provided in the Administration's
projections for the four years starting in fiscal year 2000 to acquire
the equivalent of four additional ships. Whether we construct new ships
or provide the days at sea by other means, we think this initiative
will put NOAA's ocean going requirements on firm footing.
decennial census
The fourth, and last, area for investment is the 2000 Census.
President Clinton directed me to perform the best census ever. That
means producing the most efficient, the most cost-effective, and the
most accurate census in the history of our nation. A total of $856
million is budgeted for fiscal year 1999 to conduct the 2000 Census, an
increase of $466 million. It will be a crucial year--the year final
preparations are made. The decennial staff will increase from 4,204 to
10,378. The funds will be used to complete the work on addresses; set
up the field infrastructure; print questionnaires; and develop the
computer system.
The Administration remains firmly committed to conducting the most
accurate census possible, and to this end, the funding we have
requested assumes the use of sampling in 2000. The budget provides all
the funds necessary for sampling. In addition, we have included $36
million for planning and testing census methodologies and acquiring
additional field offices. This is in compliance with the
Administration's agreement with Congress to maintain ``two tracks'' and
allow for a final decision on the use of sampling by March 1, 1999. A
great deal more money will be required to fund a non-sampling census
should Congress decide to do so. Without sampling, the cost of the
Decennial Census will increase, and its accuracy, especially with
regard to groups that are traditionally undercounted, will decrease. I
look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review the
progress we've made at Commerce in my first year as Secretary, and our
requirements for the coming fiscal year. Last year I stated that we
would hold every program and position to a stern test: keeping those we
need in order to meet our goals, and searching for new and more
efficient ways to get the job done. Our plans and budget reflect this
approach. It has been a productive year, and I look forward to working
with you and the Members of the Committee to pass our budget.
Chart 1.--Non-Financing Export Promotion Programs
Canada............................................................ 0.33
France............................................................ .18
United Kingdom.................................................... .07
Germany........................................................... .05
Japan............................................................. .05
United States..................................................... .03
1996 Expenditures per $1,000 1995 GDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 2.--Relative Export Promotion Staffing Levels
France............................................................ 2.80
Canada............................................................ 1.53
United Kingdom.................................................... 1.00
Germany........................................................... .50
Japan............................................................. .28
United States..................................................... .28
1996 Staff per $1 billion of 1995 GDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 3.--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Flash Flood
Warnings
[Average lead time (in minutes)]
1994 act.......................................................... 18
1995 act.......................................................... 26
1996 act.......................................................... 39
1997 act.......................................................... 40
1998 estimate..................................................... 40
1999 projection................................................... 42
Chart 4.--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tornado
Warnings
[Average lead time (in minutes)]
1994 act.......................................................... 6
1995 act.......................................................... 9
1996 act.......................................................... 10
1997 act.......................................................... 10
1998 estimate..................................................... 10
1999 projection................................................... 11
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I would like
to acknowledge the fact that you have done a very good job of
living up to the statements that you made last year to this
committee relative to a variety of areas--political appointees,
management improvements, and trade issues. A very impressive
first year as leader of the Department of Commerce, and I have
a lot of respect for the efforts you put in.
A couple of specific questions. You mentioned that you are
starting this new initiative which is a cross-agency effort on
the issue of disasters. What is the title of it?
Natural disaster reduction initiative
Secretary Daley. Natural disaster reduction initiative.
Senator Gregg. Where are you getting the funds for that?
How are you allocating the $315 million?
Mr. Brown. $55 million is from NOAA, $3 million from EDA,
and $3 million from NIST.
Senator Gregg. So it's how much? It's not $315 million?
Mr. Brown. $61 million. It is $305 million over 5 years.
Senator Gregg. OK. So $55 million is coming from NOAA?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. And what accounts will that come out of?
Mr. Brown. It is a combination of the Weather Service and
the National Ocean Service within NOAA.
Senator Gregg. Is this going to be new people, a new
program, or is it just going to be people and program
reoriented to be working as a team with other agencies?
Mr. Brown. NIST is new funding, about $3 million. And then
NOAA's $55 million is new funding for the Weather Service for
many of the recommendations of General Kelly's review.
Senator Gregg. We would like to get a comprehensive
statement of where the money is coming from, what it represents
in the new program, if it represents a reallocation of
resources, and how that is going to affect the different
agencies so that we can see how the money is flowing throughout
the Department.
Secretary Daley. We will get that to you.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Department of Commerce Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative
The fiscal year 1999 request is for $61 million in new budget
authority as described below.
The Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative links several Commerce
programs that have the common goal of reducing and mitigating the
economic and environmental impacts of natural disasters.
This initiative will improve the Nation's planning and response to
natural disasters, significantly reducing the loss of life and
property. It includes funds to provide better planning, improve
available information, improve infrastructure design and construction,
and promote long-term economic recovery from disasters.
FUNDING LEVELS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------- Total
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST.......................................... 3 3 3 3 3 15
EDA........................................... 3 3 3 3 3 15
NOAA.......................................... 55 55 55 55 55 275
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 61 61 61 61 61 305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST
Additional resources (13 full-time equivalent employees and $3
million) will initiate a research program to develop standards to
reduce the potential damage to critical economic infrastructure,
lifelines, and communications systems.
EDA
$3.4 million in funding will support local post-disaster economic
recovery efforts to accelerate recovery after disasters and before
supplementals are enacted. Specifically, the funds will allow EDA to
enhance its relationship with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) by more effectively coordinating early post-disaster recovery
response, and building local capacity in communities through joint EDA-
FEMA sponsored recovery and mitigation training, to more effectively
plan and implement actions to safeguard jobs and insulate their local
economy from future disasters.
NOAA
Funding will support:
NOS.--$4.5 million (assessing coastal risks and hazards, damage
assessment and restoration, harmful algal blooms and hypoxia research).
NMFS.--$2.3 million (habitat conservation and damage assessment and
restoration).
OAR.--$7 million (improving predictions/weather research, health
of the atmosphere, HPCC mesoscale modeling, space weather hazards,
hypoxia, aquatic nuisance species/NISA implementation).
NESDIS.--$1.1 million (environmental observing services).
NWS.--$40 million, including $28.3 million and 8 FTE to be
associated with the restoration of operational infrastructure based on
the Kelly Report recommendations, continuation of weather service
modernization, surface observing system, upper air observing systems,
advanced hydrological predictions).
Program Support.--$0.1 million (Gulf Stream IV jet operations).
Senator Gregg. I notice we have been joined by the chairman
of the full committee, which is an honor and a privilege. As it
is the tradition of this committee to always recognize the
chairman whenever he attends, I will recognize the chairman of
the full committee if he should have some questions or
thoughts.
NOAA fees
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Senators. I am sorry I am a few minutes late, Mr. Secretary.
I only have two comments. We have had some conversation
about it--the ex-vessel value of fish being unloaded at the
dock being subject to tax. It reminds me, we had a similar
proposal during the last administration, and it suffered an
untimely--or a timely death. Let's put it that way. I hope this
one goes the same way.
I am disturbed about Coast Guard user fees, too. Both of
them start off so small that they are almost unobjectionable.
But once they get in place, they are subject to being raised by
just executive action. I think we have to take a very serious
look at that.
I do not know what the rest of the committee thinks about
it, but I cannot understand those two provisions of the bill.
Other than that, I am very pleased with the overall
presentation, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to the hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Well, I think the chairman has obviously
flagged two items that will go down to the sea. [Laughter.]
Secretary Daley. If I could just briefly respond, we did
have a good conversation, Mr. Chairman, about this. I know that
this was brought up once before, and it was a substantially
higher amount and was immediately disposed of.
We do feel that obviously the cost of many of our
activities have gone up. We feel that the users and the
beneficiaries of much of our activities should pay a part of
that cost, and it is a difference that I am sure will be worked
out shortly. But we appreciate your comment.
Senator Gregg. I have some other questions, but let me
yield to Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NOAA Corps
While Chairman Stevens is here, let me make note that we
wrote you about the NOAA Corps. It has been very interesting
watching Government up here, first hand, now, for 31 years, and
noticing that Government develops a sort of esprit and a
dedication.
I remember the old Environmental Science Services, where
they took the Uniformed Division of the Coast and Geodetic
Survey. That unit became the NOAA Corps, which gets us right up
to the present where we are now seeing recommendations that you
get rid of the NOAA Corps. The Department of Commerce's own
study shows it saves absolutely nothing, and on the contrary,
it decimates a dedicated public service which need not be done.
The truth of the matter is I'll never forget a fellow named
Mike Dingman, who used to head up the Signal Corp. When Ronald
Reagan came to town he requested a study of the Government
agencies in order to reorganize and cut them back and determine
whether or not they were worthwhile.
I served on the Grace Commission at this time. But Dingman
headed up the study of Federal employees. And I will never
forget his report whereby he constantly said, maybe the
assistants and deputy secretaries in Government agencies would
not be able to last very long in private, free enterprise. But
he said that the ranking folks in the innards of Government,
grades 18, 19 and coming on down, would be paid by private
industry three and four times more.
I can tell you right now to get the word of a U.S. Senator,
private industry would pay us $400,000 to $500,000 per year.
There isn't any doubt in my mind.
So you have these valuable people in the NOAA Corps who are
doing an outstanding job. And just for a fetish of getting rid
of the Government, we now have this move to disband them. You
see the whole intent when Republicans came to town here 2 or 3
years ago was to get rid of the Government, abolish your
Department, abolish Energy, Education, Housing, and everything
else like that, and they saw an opportunity to show they had
done something. So they got rid of Tourism--which was a
mistake. We were hardly spending a thing on it.
I have a question about the statistics, for them to show
that something was done--don't just stand there, do something,
get rid of something, let's get rid of the NOAA Corps. And ATP.
[Laughter.]
Which is really doing a wonderful job. Senator Stevens and
I wrote to you about it. I think we ought to hold on to them. I
mean, we in the Congress are determined not to get rid of the
NOAA Corps.
Secretary Daley. Well, Mr. Chairman, and Senator, it is
obvious that Congress has been pretty adamant about their
desire not to do away with the corps.
We are trying to evaluate exactly what is the minimum
number of officers we need in the corps. There is a
disagreement, obviously, on the need to have these people in
the military, or in uniform, I should say. The Navy, as I
understand it, except for their fighting ships, is staffed by
civilian people, not uniformed people, I should say a minimum
amount of military people.
Senator Hollings. But you see, the Congress is putting all
the schoolchildren in uniforms. [Laughter.]
Oh, yes. We are beginning to love that now. And we think
they ought to have uniforms. As they do up in New Hampshire.
I've seen them. [Laughter.]
Senator Gregg. Very nice uniforms.
Senator Hollings. They are. They all have the same clothes.
They've got everything----
Senator Gregg. They're called parkas.
Senator Hollings. In any event, you should look into the
uniform issue.
Secretary Daley. We will.
Senator Hollings. And I, like the chairman, commend you.
You have gotten some things going. With respect to the fishing
fleet, we finally got some money for the NOAA fleet. And you
and I, Senator Gregg, put some money in there, and Senator
Stevens and I and others have been trying to develop that
fleet. Because again it is going to save money. It provides
jobs, and it is a needed program.
AWIPS
On AWIPS, specifically, how are you going to do this
program for $550 million? You did the right thing. You created
the software within your Department of Commerce. And you got
the plan ongoing, but I think we are going to have to put more
money in. I don't see how you can do it with the commitment at
$550 million.
We are just going to have to get more money. Isn't that
right?
Secretary Daley. Well, it looks as though, Senator, to be
able to provide the level of service that the citizens need, we
will not be able to do it for $550 million. I am waiting, to be
honest with you, to meet with General Kelly, who had a series
of evaluations done on exactly how much more over the $550
million we will need, and what sort of cuts, if we do have to
cut any sort of functionalities, will be necessary in order to
keep the amount over $550 million to a minimum. So I hope to
have that report and give it to the committee within the next
10 days. To be very frank with you, we have improved the AWIPS
program by bringing in the software design into the Department.
I am extremely disappointed at the fact that what has been
assured to me as being able to be done by the Weather Service,
and that was to live within the cap, is not possible at this
point. And I think General Kelly will address that. It is, in
my opinion, a very serious problem that reflects poorly on the
budget management by the Weather Service of their operation. At
the same time, we plan to be talking to the primary contractor
on this project, to see and discuss with the people in the
budget department and with the people in the General Counsel's
Office as to what options we may have with that contractor.
Senator Hollings. Well, I commend you. You are on top of
it, and you are working it, and I trust you will let us know
what is realistically needed. I can't see the Congress, with El
Nino and other natural disasters, voting to cut Weather Service
and weather projections.
And like you say, you have 25 percent improvement on
surveys and estimates and everything else of that kind.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is good. I have some
concerns regarding EDA and other matters, but let me yield to
you and see what other questions we have.
Senator Gregg. Well, AWIPS, obviously, is a major issue. I
do acknowledge as you do that the Secretary has aggressively
pursued it, and obviously you have some problems there.
I guess my reaction is, hopefully, the problems are
properly in order now, and you have them under control. If that
is the case, the next step is to make sure we get what we need
as a system, and not in order to arbitrarily reach the cap,
which I can understand from management's standpoint we need to
reach and not exceed.
But if we end up just staying with a cap, because it's the
cap, and end up losing some flexibility that the system might
otherwise have, then that maybe undermines the whole process.
It is a tough management call. You are going to have to make
it. We know you are on top of it.
Secretary Daley. It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, and quite
frankly I am disappointed that we assured the Congress that we
would be able to live with the cap. We would have been better
off if we had had a better handle on the situation so we could
have been more honest 1 year ago when we made that assurance.
And that is why I am, at this point, unable to give you the
assurance of exactly what the amount is.
Senator Gregg. Well, when you give us the amount, give us
the programmatic activities that you are going to include, and
if you are dropping any programmatic activities, the ones that
you are going to drop.
Secretary Daley. Those will be the options that I am
waiting for from General Kelly, and then we will forward them
to you immediately.
Decennial census sampling
Senator Gregg. OK. On the census, you mentioned the issue,
as far as this Department is concerned, relative to the
Congress' funding issues, and also from a public policy
standpoint. Do you see a way of reaching an accommodation with
the House on this issue?
Secretary Daley. Well, we must reach some accommodation by
the spring of 1999 in order to have the confidence so that as
we put the actual program together and finalize it being put
together in 1999 that we are all on the same wavelength.
If we were not to do sampling the cost would be
substantially greater. There is a Supreme Court case that has
been filed. The court may decide for all of us this issue. If
they don't, then it gets back to where the political system is
going to solve the problem.
I am hopeful that we can solve it and sampling will
survive. As I mentioned, we believe strongly. I understand the
politics of the debate, but at the same time, doing the census
either way presents an incredible management challenge.
It is the largest peace time mobilization. As I mentioned,
just in filling the slots, 260,000 people are employed at any
given time, is going to be a very difficult task.
So I would very much hope that by the end of this session--
early in 1999, this issue has got to be settled one way or the
other. Am I optimistic? I am generally an optimistic person,
but it is going to be tough.
The sort of statements being made by the inspector general
and the GAO in reports reflects their criticism and comments
and concerns based upon the uncertainty of where Congress and
the administration is going--the traditional or the sampling.
And that is really the heart. Even though the inspector general
and GAO both support, and it is strongly stated there,
sampling, the heart of their concern is the fact that there is
this uncertainty that continues. So that is a long answer. The
short answer would be I am optimistic that it can be resolved.
Senator Gregg. Are there meetings? Is there a process for
reaching an agreement beyond just waiting for the Supreme Court
to make a decision?
Secretary Daley. Last fall there was an agreement reached
to get us through this process, to change the dress rehearsals
so that the dress rehearsal in Columbia, SC, will use the
traditional method. And then try to have a review based upon
how the dress rehearsals go. And then from our perspective, we
will have a better understanding of the accuracy and the cost
effectiveness of both methods.
But I think it will either take a Supreme Court decision to
give us a clear answer. If the court were to rule that sampling
was unconstitutional, obviously that would end it, at least for
the time being. On the other hand, if there is no definite
decision by the Supreme Court, we will have to resolve it. We
do have ongoing discussions with the House and the House
leadership, but this year we seem to be buying a little time
and peace to get through the dress rehearsals.
Patent and Trademark Office relocation
Senator Gregg. Now, the Patent and Trademark Office has
requested the ability to move to a new campus, which would cost
$1.3 billion--at least that is the initial estimate, which is a
phenomenal amount of money to build a building for the Patent
and Trademark Office. And we have just been through building a
building downtown on Pennsylvania Avenue, which was a disaster.
We have a concern, as I have expressed to you in private
meetings, that could also be a disaster.
I am just wondering what sort of management initiatives are
being taken to first make a decision as to whether or not this
type of move is necessary, whether this type of construction is
necessary, and if it is necessary, how do we do better than
what happened downtown, working, obviously, with GSA.
Secretary Daley. First of all, we do feel that there has to
be--and this began in 1995--a review of the needs of the PTO.
We are presently in about, I think, 17 locations in the Crystal
City area, and the need to consolidate into a fewer number of
buildings is extremely important to us for a better operation.
At the same time, these leases in the 17 buildings are in
the process of expiring, so they have to be renewed. The needs
of the PTO and the costs to them are going to be substantial,
whatever option we choose, of staying in the locations, or
fewer locations. If those buildings and the space needs of the
PTO can be met by some rather substantial improvements in those
buildings, or the option of going to a new building that GSA
would be the landlord of and we would be the tenant of, and
would pay rent that would be less than the rent we are paying
now in all of these locations when we add it up in the present
location.
I am as sensitive as you, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that
this is a substantial amount of money, and is a major step by
PTO. But we feel strongly that this review had to be done, and
at this rate it is moving forward in a way that I think we will
get the best dollar in rent that we will have to pay, for the
taxpayers.
But we will continue to be sensitive. We have had four or
five reviews done on different aspects of this. I have asked in
the last 3 days, for a study to be done of the needs,
comparisons of other locations and other consolidations that
have taken place recently in the Government, and would like by
the middle of April to have that study done. And, obviously, we
will transmit it to you immediately. But the bottom line is our
space needs in PTO will cost a tremendous amount of money.
Whether it is in the consolidation into one or a number of
buildings has got to be determined. GSA would be the landlord,
and we would be their tenant, paying less than what we are
paying now. That's the goal.
Senator Gregg. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I
don't resist the idea of moving. I don't resist the idea of
even building a whole campus if that is the concept. What I am
concerned about is that it be done with efficiency and that it
not end up being a disgrace, so the taxpayers don't end up
feeling that they have been taken to the cleaners the way they
were downtown in a building which, regrettably, ended up with
the name Ronald Reagan on it. So as we step into this water, I
want to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes we
made before so many times, when the Government decides to do a
project of this size.
Secretary Daley. Well, we will keep you very informed of
how we are moving, and what is happening with this process.
And, as I say, as soon as this study is given to me it will be
given to you.
I am as concerned as you about the appearance to taxpayers.
And at the same time, we do need to do it, and I think we have
to do it in a judicious way that doesn't raise this spectacle
of what has happened with other buildings.
Senator Hollings. What about the Portals Building? The FCC
doesn't want to go there. How about the Patent Office going
there?
Secretary Daley. To be honest with you, Senator, I am not
sure whether that building would meet our needs technically.
First of all, I am not sure about the amount of space in that
building.
Senator Hollings. It is not enough?
Secretary Daley. No, sir.
Senator Gregg. You are looking for 2 million feet?
Secretary Daley. A little less than 2 million. Right now we
have about 1.7 million.
Senator Hollings. Well, I think the point ought to be made
on the record that the Patent Office doesn't cost the taxpayers
a red cent. I mean, they more than pay their way with the fees
and everything else like that. Just like we make money on drug
enforcement from the sale of all the planes, properties, and
everything else that we seize.
When you come right down to it, they ought to take care of
the needs of the Patent Office. Like the chairman, I am
concerned that we don't waste money. But we ought not to be
puny with the Patent Office, because they have been more than
paying their way through their fees over the years.
Under Secretary for Technology
With respect to the Under Secretary for Technology, Mary
Good has been gone for quite a while. Do you have a replacement
yet?
Secretary Daley. Gary Bachula has been the Acting Under
Secretary, and has done a fine job. At the same time, Senator,
we have a name that has been going through the process, and we
hope to have that nomination put to the Hill very shortly. It
has been through a rather long and tedious process of vetting,
as they call it. So we hope to have that nomination from the
President very shortly.
Manufacturing technology centers
Senator Hollings. With respect to the manufacturing
technology centers, they have been working, and working
extremely well to the point that both authorizing committees
now have lifted the sunset provisions. Do you support that?
Secretary Daley. We do support that. There has been a
reduction in the funding, as you will see in 1999, because
there was a schedule that had been laid out in the legislation
that the Federal portion of funding was reduced from 50 to 40
to 33 percent and more of that would be local support. So there
is some very small reduction in the funding. But we do support
that concept.
Senator Hollings. And your September study showed that the
program had really accelerated research and development in the
technology area. That there had been over 1,000 new
applications and 210 projects with over 100 patents filed. And
many of the applications, I have noted here, are brand new
technologies. The program is working.
Secretary Daley. It is working. We have done very well,
especially reaching out, as you know better than anyone,
Senator, to the small- and medium-sized businesses.
Senator Hollings. Some have suggested that the National
Academy of Sciences make a study of the Advanced Technology
Program. It would suit this Senator, because the National
Academy of Sciences made a study that supported the program's
inception. That's how we started it. Would you object to the
National Academy of Sciences making a study?
Secretary Daley. Not at all. Because I think they would
show what we feel, and that both ATP and MEP have been huge
successes.
assistance to communities affected by Trade dislocation or technology
improvement
Senator Hollings. Regarding the amount of moneys in EDA.
The President announced the program in his State of the Union,
talking about your famous accomplishments with trade impacted
communities. Instead of 100,000 jobs, there have been estimates
of up to 600,000. I think 400,000 is more accurate, from
studies that I can find. Do we have sufficient funds in the
Economic Development Administration to take care of that
impact?
Secretary Daley. Well, we are asking for additional funds,
about $250 million over 5 years. We are trying to put a
concerted effort together to give additional assistance to
communities that are affected by trade dislocation or
technology improvement.
Most of the dislocations in jobs over the last couple of
years have been more technology related than trade related. But
in some areas of the country, the impact to a community because
of a trade dislocation is rather enormous. So we are attempting
to put a program together in EDA that will specifically be
targeted to those needs, and we feel strongly that EDA's
success in so many other ways, in working with local
communities, will be replicated in this program.
impact of Asia economy on United States imports and exports
Senator Hollings. As Secretary of Commerce, what is your
judgment of the Asia financial crises, the impact on commerce
and the economy here in the United States?
Secretary Daley. Well, there is no doubt that it is going
to have an impact. As these economies drop in their activities,
our exports will be affected.
As I mentioned earlier in my statement, Senator, on my trip
last week we tried to once again strongly indicate to the three
places I went to, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, the need to make
sure that the market opening activities that have been going on
and the commitments that have been made are lived up to.
There is no doubt, with our strong economy, that our
consumers will continue to be rather ravenous in their
appetite, as well as our companies, and our imports will
increase, and they will increase by the end of the year rather
substantially.
Regarding our exports, there seems to be a disagreement
right now. Many of the business leaders have expressed the
opinion that they do not foresee in the near future a
tremendous negative impact on their exports. That was the
analysis of many of the Business Council members last week.
But we have real concerns about the potential impact,
because when you have such a slow down in the economies in
Asia, which has been a major part of our export growth, that is
going to have an impact probably in the second half of this
year, not the first half. So the bottom line is that our
imports, as you know, are going to increase substantially.
Senator Hollings. Well, we have a vote, as the chairman
indicated. Let me just reiterate his comments. You have done an
outstanding job. I used to go around the halls trying to count
heads to see how many votes I could get so they wouldn't
abolish the Department. But you have given us character and
credibility, even with the other side of the aisle, which is
wonderful. And I thank you, sir.
Secretary Daley. I appreciate that.
Senator Gregg. I think we have 7 minutes on the vote.
Senator Domenici is here.
Senator Hollings. I'm sorry. I didn't notice. You're so
quiet when you came in. He was our chairman, you know. Been
around this thing for years.
Senator Gregg. I know. Between the two of you, you have 10
times more knowledge than I have.
Senator Domenici. Senator Hollings, I would agree that
Secretary Daley has added some real distinction to this office.
But I wouldn't get carried away about it.
Senator Hollings. Well, I like to be fair and reasonable.
[Laughter.]
Senator Domenici. I think we're just not in a mood right
now to get rid of departments, but you can rest assured that
when the time comes, Commerce will be at the top of the list
again. You will have to go back to work. Commerce and Energy
are one and two, or two and one, depending on from whom we
hear. Of course, we have a little bit of kinship, you and me,
because I don't want to get rid of the Energy Department, and
you don't want to get rid of Commerce. So we may be brothers
before this is finished.
Senator Hollings. Oh, yes.
Senator Domenici. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to make a general observation, and I don't know whether this
helps you or harms you. I want to repeat, as the Budget
Committee reports out the discretionary pot of money, all the
discretionary spending, which is bound by a statutory cap in
terms of dollars, both budget authority and outlays, that the
CBO has just told us that it is now equivalent to a freeze in
program authority, that number, and essentially it's about $2
billion in outlays less than a freeze.
I note without adding them all up, Mr. Secretary, the $700
million increase that is in here for Commerce, that two-thirds
of it is for the census. I understand that. Nonetheless there
is a $700 million increase when we must operate under a freeze.
I note with interest that the Justice Department part of
the bill is $2.6 billion higher than last year. I only say this
because it looks to me like it's going to be very hard to give
anybody increases of any significance.
Senator Gregg. We also have big problems with trust funds,
too.
Patent and Trademark Office fees
Senator Domenici. That's correct. Now, what I really wanted
to talk about, and it is as much a principle with me as it is
dollars. Essentially, we have a Patent and Trademark Office
that many of us have been worried about for a long time. We
hope it is as modern as it can be, and we hope our patent and
trademark laws are as modern as they can be--although it is
interesting that they have been in existence with very few
changes for many, many years, with a dramatically changing
economic and market world.
The President, in his budget, by using some new language,
actually puts money into this bill, Senator Hollings, to be
spent on appropriated accounts by raising the Patent Office's
fees, to a degree significantly in excess of what is needed to
run the office.
So we have a fee situation that is being used to supplement
the General Treasury in terms of collecting taxes, even though
we don't call them that, and then spending them.
I have already spoken to the Secretary. It is not his
fault, saying that is going to meet with a lot of opposition,
especially since the President did it this year with such
abandon. It is not just in this program, but he did it
throughout the budget.
So in order to spend more money, he has got user fees and
the like that he is collecting, that he asked us to collect. I
am quick to say, there is nothing illegal about that. There is
nothing antibudget about that. But it just is a very
interesting approach when you have caps that you have already
agreed to, in terms of what your domestic spending was going to
look like. Then you come in the back door and spend a
considerable amount more. In fact, we think we are over $120
billion in new spending through this and other approaches.
Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that if we were to adopt
the President's plan with the new designation for the PTO
surcharge--otherwise it would expire--but he puts it back in so
we will be collecting more than is needed to run the office
efficiently?
Secretary Daley. We do collect more than we need at this
time. And you are right, Mr. Chairman. There obviously are
funds that are unused and have been for the last couple of
years.
Senator Domenici. So the interesting thing is the President
puts in a rescission of that surcharge, and then comes in
another way and designates it as something new and puts it back
into the bill. I think we ought to be careful about that,
because how many of these are we going to do in the budget
year?
Also, I am of the opinion that programs like EDA and those
that are related to it, that they ought not to be getting
significant increases either this year when we have the
problems we've got, and there are a few increases requested in
those programs.
Senator Hollings, if I thought a new program, and there is
a new program here contemplated, if I thought a new program
would help the cities that are adversely affected by changing
exports and imports, I would be right there with it. I don't
find that very many of the Federal programs that come into
those communities do very much good other than put in some
executives to run things, and give you a few little pluses here
and there in an economic development plan. I just think the
local communities have a tough job replenishing the lost jobs
with new ones, and I don't think we can make it very much
easier. So I personally don't want any more new programs, but I
might lose out on that $50 million one. I don't know.
Senator Gregg. Well, we've got about 4 minutes until the
vote. Have you voted?
Senator Domenici. I have not.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. So I think we will just wrap up the hearing.
There are some questions we want to submit to you.
Secretary Daley. Certainly.
Senator Gregg. I would say, generally, on the NOAA accounts
that obviously this committee is very interested in the NOAA
accounts, and always has been, Senator Stevens and myself,
Senator Hollings and a few others.
Senator Hollings. I also have some questions, Mr. Chairman,
to submit.
Senator Gregg. Very good.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
government performance and results act [gpra]
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. Our annual performance goals are cited in our fiscal year
1999 detailed budget justifications and Budget in Brief. They are
linked to the common set of goals and objectives contained in the
Commerce Strategic Plan and Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
which bring all of the Department's program activities together under
three Strategic Themes.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. All bureaus have participated in the development of the
Commerce Strategic Plan, and have contributed to the development of its
three strategic themes and program-oriented goals and objectives. Our
bureau budget requests are organized around those Themes, goals, and
objectives.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. Yes. The Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan contains
performance measures for each major program, and provides an appendix
linking them to the budget requests. Each bureau has performance
measures.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justifications? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2000? Will you propose any changes to the
program activities described under that account structure?
Answer. Our performance planning structure (i.e., our program
structure) and our account/activity structure are the same. We will not
contemplate any proposed changes for our account structure or program
activities in fiscal year 2000 until we have completed the fiscal year
2000 planning process later this spring and summer.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. Performance measures were proposed initially by bureau
program, policy, and budget staffs, and were selected in final form
after negotiations with Office of the Secretary and Office of
Management and Budget staffs.
Question. How did the agency balance the cost of data collection
and verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
As is true of all other agencies, Commerce struggles with the need
to balance the costs of data collection/verification with the need to
provide programs and services at the least cost to the American people.
Where possible, we use existing data sources and data verification
processes, in order to avoid requesting additional resources for data
collection. In some cases, this has meant using surrogate (rather than
specifically-designed) measures.
In our initial stages of GPRA implementation, we found that this
data issue actually consists of two elements: deciding what and how to
measure our activities, and then securing the data we need to measure
them. In most cases, we have reached consensus on the first element,
but we and other agencies are rapidly approaching the point where
existing data do not satisfy the needs of GPRA, and where the resources
needed in order to gather the desired data are in short supply.
Question. Does your plan include performance measures for which
reliable data are not likely to be available in time for your first
performance report in March 2000?
Answer. Our Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan identifies the
performance measures which we believe are important to use but for
which we currently lack data and data sources. Although addressing
these problems will be a priority for us in the second half of fiscal
year 1998, it is not yet clear if we will have the necessary data for
our first Annual Performance Report, due in March 2000.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your Fiscal Year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure (``how much'') or an outcome
measure (``how well''). State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general
goal and objective from the agency strategic plan to which the annual
goal is linked.
Answer. See Attached listing.
Chapter 4-A: Economic Infrastructure
(performance measures)
Chapter 4-A sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
for program activities described in Chapter 1 and links them to our
budget request.
Chapter 4-A of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
economic infrastructure. The performance measures are numbered to
correspond to the goals and objectives discussed in Chapter 1.
1.0 EXPORT GROWTH
1.1 Implement the President's National Export Strategy in
conjunction with the Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee.
ITA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $286.5 million, with 2,329
FTE.
1.1.1 Strengthen trade advocacy, trade promotion, and the
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects (#)................. 590 650 700 Output.
Value of exports ($B)........ 111 135 145 Output.
Satisfied customers (percent) ........ ........ ........ Output.
Projects successfully 11 12 14 Output.
completed (percent).
Gross exports supported ($B) 7 10 12 Outcome.
\1\.
Gross jobs supported (#) \1\. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ITA's efforts to quantify ``additionality'' (i.e. value added from
its trade programs) and the related performance measures listed above
(``Dollar value of gross exports supported'' and ``Number of gross
jobs supported'') although focused, remain a work in progress.
Note.--For some measures, quantitative means are not fully appropriate
or may not be available at this time. In these instances, we explain
the approach we are using to assess progress in footnotes. The use of
shading throughout Chapters 4A-4C indicates that measurement areas
will receive priority attention in fiscal year 1999.
1.1.2 Increase trade assistance targeted to small and
medium-sized businesses. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counseling sessions (#)...... 534,903 363,762 378,279 Output.
Clients (#).................. 335,883 180,996 193,035 Output.
Satisfied customers from 95 95 95 Output.
counseling (percent).
Matching services (#)........ 1,384 1,410 1,410 Output.
Custom agency reports (#).... 14,938 17,372 17,648 Output.
Satisfied customers (percent) ........ ........ ........ Output.
\1\.
Reports distributed (#)...... 502,425 524,242 542,619 Output.
Trade events (#)............. 473 440 465 Output.
Firms attending (#).......... 11,982 10,290 10,825 Output.
Satisfied customers from ........ ........ ........ Output.
events (percent) \1\.
New-to-export firms (#)...... 10,021 10,541 10,649 Outcome.
New-to-market firms (#)...... 33,957 35,339 36,806 Outcome.
Gross exports supported ($).. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
Gross jobs supported (#)..... ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
Firms that actually export 30 32 32 Outcome.
(percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ITA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
measuring customer satisfaction.
1.2 Enforce U.S. trade laws and agreements to promote free
and fair trade.
1.2.1 Expand trade law enforcement efforts. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications reviewed (#).... 84 100 115 Output.
Applications processed (#)... 122 122 122 Output.
Entries monitored (#)........ 4,600 4,800 5,000 Output.
Petitioners counseled (#).... 54 54 54 Output.
Investigations conducted (#). 11 11 11 Output.
AD/CVD orders issued to the 7 7 7 Output.
U.S. Customs Service (#).
Requests processed (#)....... 225 225 225 Output.
Reviews conducted (#)........ 147 147 147 Output.
AD/CVD sunset reviews ........ 65 130 Output.
conducted (#).
Gross exports ($B)........... 17 20 22 Outcome.
Gross jobs supported (#)..... 370,000 380,000 400,000 Outcome.
Duty-free scientific
equipment imported/made
available to U.S. non-profit
educational/research
institutions ($M)........... 34 34 34 Outcome.
Duty-free articles imported
to improve quality of life
for disabled ($K)........... 230 235 240 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.2 Expand compliance monitoring efforts. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of agreements entered 220 100 10 Output.
into database.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 Strengthen and institutionalize trade advocacy efforts,
placing special emphasis on the ``Big Emerging
Markets'' (BEM's) and major projects.
1.3.1 Continue emphasis on trade with the BEM's without
losing focus on mature markets. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreements (#)............... 6 6 6 Output.
Satisfied customers (percent) 100 100 100 Output.
Contribution from cooperators 72 67 67 Output.
(percent).
Gross exports supported ($).. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
Gross jobs supported (#)..... ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4 Restructure export controls for the twenty-first
century.
BXA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $52.2 million, with 433
FTE.
1.4.1 Streamline and reform U.S. export controls. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing decisions (#)...... 10,554 10,100 10,100 Output.
Commodity classifications 3,359 4,200 4,200 Output.
completed (#).
Applications process within 99.8 98 98 Outcome.
statutory time frames
(percent).
High risk transactions denied 317 303 303 Outcome.
(#).
Low risk transactions 8,715 8,500 8,700 Outcome.
facilitated (#).
Average processing times for 35 34 33 Output.
license application (days).
Average processing times for
commodity classifications
(days)...................... 25 22 20 Output.
Commodity classifications
processed within regulatory
time frames (percent)....... 25 35 50 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4.2 Promote export control cooperation with the
independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union
(FSU), the Baltics, Central Europe, and other
countries in order to facilitate legitimate trade
in high-tech goods and technology, and to help stop
the proliferation of specific items to rogue states
and terrorists. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International cooperative 36 40 42 Output.
exchanges (#).
Establishment of effective ........ ........ 30 Outcome.
NIS control system elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4.3 Implement the Nation's encryption export policy.
(BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encryption commitment plan
and progress report reviews
(#)......................... 37 41 100 Output.
Encryption key recovery agent 9 50 100 Output.
reviews (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.4.4 Oversee domestic implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention. (BXA) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CWC is a new activity for BXA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWC inspections (#).......... ........ ........ 40 Output.
CWC facility agreements (#).. ........ ........ 140 Output.
Data declarations processed ........ ........ 2,000 Output.
(#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5 Maintain a fully effective law enforcement program and
protect U.S. national security, foreign policy,
nonproliferation of dual-use commodities, counter-
terrorism, nonproliferation of chemical weapons,
and public safety interests.
1.5.1 Investigate criminal and administrative violations of
the specific statutes and regulations, and impose
civil sanctions for those violations. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed enforcement 998 1,100 1,350 Output.
investigations (#).
Investigations accepted for
criminal or administrative
remedies (#)................ 60 66 73 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.2 Develop and implement measures to prevent export
control law violations, including reviews of
unlicensed shipments as well as conducting pre-
license checks and post-shipment verifications
concerning licensed transactions. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-license checks completed 379 400 500 Output.
(#).
Post shipment verifications 301 325 375 Outcome.
completed (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5.3 Conduct export enforcement outreach with the U.S.
export community, and expand outreach and education
programs to train U.S. exporters how to identify
and avoid illegal transactions. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement seminars (#)..... 4 6 8 Output.
Anti-boycott help phone calls 1,226 1,300 1,300 Output.
(#).
Firms assisted through ........ ........ 800 Output.
enforcement outreach (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.6 Facilitate transition of defense industries.
1.6.1 Promote U.S. economic security, technological
competitiveness, and defense diversification. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense industry advocacy ........ ........ 130 Output.
assistance requests (#).
Strategic industry analyses 716 485 485 Output.
(#).
Value of facilitated exports 2.3 5.0 5.0 Outcome.
($B).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 IMPROVED ECONOMIC STATISTICS
2.1 Strengthen the public's understanding of the U.S.
economy and its competitive position by improving
Gross Domestic Product and other national,
regional, and international economic accounts data.
ESA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $53.7 million, with 570
FTE. Census' fiscal year 1999 is $1.19 billion, with 16,510 FTE.
2.1.1 Develop new and improved measures of real GDP and
prices. (ESA)
2.1.2 Provide updated measures of the Nation's investment,
savings, and wealth. (ESA) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Objective 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 have the same performance measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop new methods and ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \3\ ) Output.
source data.
Extend quality adjustments
and improve measurement of
hard-to-measure goods and
services.................... ( \4\ ) ( \5\ ) ( \6\ ) Output.
Developed improved measures ( \7\ ) ( \8\ ) ( \9\ ) Output.
of capital stock.
News releases of BEA data (#) 49 50 50 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extended BEA's new chain weighted measures of output and prices to
all 5 major accounts, including estimates of Gross State Product,
National wealth, GDP by Industry, and International Investment.
\2\ Begin revising and updating estimation methods for components
contributing to the $100 billion statistical discrepancy between the
product and income estimates of GDP.
\3\ Develop updated source data and associated estimating methods for
the 10 major product-side components and the 4 major income-side
components accounting for the bulk of the statistical discrepancy.
\4\ Extended quality adjustments to another key high-tech product,
telephone switching equipment.
\5\ Extend quality adjustments to additional high-tech products, such as
cellular phones and prepackaged software.
\6\ Develop new concepts and methods for measuring hard-to-measure goods
and services, such as custom computer software and financial services.
\7\ Developed updated depreciation and valuation methods that raised the
estimate of the Nation's productive capital stock by 22 percent.
\8\ Initiate research on developing regional capital stock estimates for
all 50 states.
\9\ Develop estimates of the Nation's capital stock and investment in
computer software. Such estimates will address much needed
modernization in BEA's estimates used in analyzing productivity and
the Nation's growth potential
2.1.3 Provide improved measures of U.S. international trade
and finance. (ESA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of new measures of Incorporated first benchmark Publish results of benchmark Extend annual selected services Output.
international transactions. data on U.S. portfolio survey on trade in 5 of the surveys to collect key data
investment abroad in 50 years most important types of quarterly on large and rapidly
into balance of payments ``affiliated'' services. growing types of international
accounts; the updated sample trade, such as insurance,
and increased coverage finance, transportation,
resulted in raising the computer and information
estimate of U.S. investment services and communication
abroad by $333 billion. services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Improve national and local census and survey data
through better business practices and public
cooperation.
2.2.1 Develop efficient and innovative business practices
to improve cost, timeliness, and the quality
performance of Census data. (ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational processing ........ ........ 4 Output.
centers (Decennial Census)
(#).
Operational Regional census ........ 12 12 Output.
centers.
Final 1998 Dress Rehearsal ........ ........ 3 Output.
results released (#).
1998 Dress Rehearsal ........ ........ 3 Output.
redistricting products
released.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.2 Increase the level of public cooperation by
simplifying public response, building partnerships,
and implementing a customer focused marketing plan.
(ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response rate for cross 93 91-95 91-95 Output.
sectional surveys (percent).
Data releases describing
economic status of all U.S.
households (#).............. 16 16 16 Output.
City style addresses ........ ........ 100 Output.
canvassed (percent).
Non-city style addresses ........ 25 100 Output.
canvassed (percent).
Planned field partnerships 3 42 89 Output.
established (percent).
Census forms printed ........ ........ 100 Output.
(percent).
Response rate for American 98 95-98 95-98 Outcome.
Community Survey (percent).
Program participation for
American Community Survey (#
of sites)................... 8 9 37 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES
3.1 Establish, retain, or expand commercial, industrial,
and high-technology enterprises to stimulate the
creation of private sector jobs for unemployed and
underemployed residents of economically distressed
areas.
EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
FTE.
3.1.1 Build, rebuild, and expand vital public
infrastructure facilities that offer substantial
employment potential and improve the capacity for
economic growth in distressed areas. (EDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Works-Jobs created and/
or retained (# direct,
nonproject, indirect)....... 50,400 54,000 49,000 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.2 Overcome specific capital market gaps and encourage
greater private sector participation in economic
development activities by establishing or expanding
revolving loan funds in economically distressed
areas. (EDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Adjustment Revolving
Fund Federal, State, local
non-EDA dollars invested
($M)........................ ........
\1\ 12
\2\ 1.5 \1\ 31.5
\2\ 4.0 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Private.
\2\ Other.
3.2 Help distressed communities adversely affected by
defense-related downsizing, natural disasters or
economic dislocation and build their capacity to
stimulate, maintain, or expand economic growth.
3.2.1 Promote comprehensive, inclusive economic planning in
distressed communities to identify economic
problems, assess the availability of local and non-
local resources, and formulate and implement
realistic development strategies. (EDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning and Economic
Adjustment strategies--
Increased community
participation (Grantee self
evaluation out of 10)...... ........ 8.5 8.5 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2.2 Provide technical assistance to communities to solve
specific economic development problems, respond to
development opportunities, and build and expand
local organizational capacity in distressed areas.
(EDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical assistance--Quality
of evaluation or feasibility
study (Grantee self-
evaluation out of 10)....... ........ 9.1 9.1 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3 Provide new knowledge, analyses and technical
information which serve both to assess economic
development problems and to mobilize non-federal
resources for their solutions at the local level.
3.3.1 Study and research emerging and anticipated economic
development problems. (EDA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and evaluation............ ............................... Research results disseminated Research results disseminated Output.
thru conferences, thru conferences,
publications, & Internet to publications, & the Internet
practitioners. to practitioners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.2 Provide technical assistance to local governments,
community-based organizations and small businesses
on economic development-related issues through
colleges and universities.\3\ (EDA)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Measures are being developed under a national research grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.3.3 Aid firms and industries injured by import
competition by providing technical assistance in
diagnosing problems and assessing opportunities
through business assistance centers. (EDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trade adjustment assistance--
Sales and employment (jobs
created/retained for all
firms completing programs)
(percent increase):
Sales.................... ........ +20 +20 Outcome.
Jobs..................... ........ +10 +10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 SUPPORT FOR MINORITY BUSINESS
4.1 Improve opportunities for minority-owned businesses to
have access to the marketplace.
MBDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $28.1 million with 120
FTE.
4.1.1 Match procurement opportunities with minority
business enterprise capability electronically.
(MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matched (#).................. ........ 500 1,000 Output.
Dollars matched ($M)......... ........ 10 20 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.2 Bring together Federal, State, local and private
sector resources for minority business enterprises.
(MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memoranda of Understanding 117 140 200 Output.
(MOU's) signed (#).
Business assisted (#)........ 1,000 1,500 1,750 Output.
Value of assistance ($M)..... 30 45 53 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.3 Provide management and technical assistance to
minority business enterprises. (MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business assisted (#)........ 7,518 7,819 8,053 Output.
Management and Technical
Assistance (M&TA) hours
approved.................... 126,294 131,346 135,286 Output.
Contracts approved (#)....... 825 858 884 Output.
Value of contracts approved 221 220 226 Outcome.
($M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.4 Establish business resource centers through joint
ventures to assist minority business enterprises.
(MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRC's (#).................... 7 8 11 Output.
New business served (#)...... ........ ........ 400 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.5 Arrange delegations of pre-qualified minority
companies to participate in domestic and
international trade missions. (MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic/international trade ........ 2 7 Output.
missions (#).
Business assisted (#)........ 20 40 140 Output.
Amount ($M).................. ........ 5 17 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.6 Create franchise opportunities with major
corporations for minority business enterprises.
(MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOU's signed (#)............. ........ 1 4 Output.
Business assisted (#)........ ........ 1 4 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.7 Create opportunities for minority business
enterprises through acquisitions, mergers and joint
ventures. (MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreements (#)............... ........ 1 25 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Improve the opportunities for minority-owned businesses
to pursue financing.
4.2.1 Promote minority business lending with financial
institutions. (MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOU's signed (#)............. 5 20 30 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2.2 Arrange loan pre-qualification for minority business
enterprises. (MBDA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved loan packages (#)... 900 600 600 Output.
Value ($M)................... 211 160 160 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.0 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
5.1 Provide technical leadership for the Nation's
measurement and standards infrastructure, and
assure the availability of essential reference data
and measurement capabilities.
US/OTP's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $10 million, with 50
FTE. NIST's budget request is $715.0 million, with 3,295 FTE.
5.1.1 Anticipate and address the Nation's most important
needs for physical and information-based
measurements and standards. (TA) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Department of Commerce is among the agencies participating
actively in the Research Round Table, which is developing consensus
approaches to planning/measurement issues under the ``Alternative
Format'' provision of GPRA. The Alternative Format is built upon peer
review and economic impact studies. NIST's Measurement and Standards
Laboratories are evaluated annually by the National Research Council
and this information will also be used. Objectives 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3,
and 5.2.2 will use the Alternative Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Reference Materials 1,278 1,293 1,308 Output.
(SRM) available (#).
SRM units sold (#)........... 39,358 38,928 38,142 Output.
Standard Reference Database 58 60 62 Output.
(SRD) titles available (#).
SRD units distributed (#).... 5,102 5,200 5,300 Output.
Calibrations and tests 8,902 9,000 8,900 Output.
performed (#).
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation laboratories
enrolled (#)................ 854 900 900 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.2 Strengthen the national system of standards,
measurement, measurement traceability, and
conformity assessment. (TA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST patents filed and licenses issued (#)...... 44 40 40 Output.
Standards committees involving NIST staff (#)... 1,167 1,175 1,175 Output.
Requests to the central NIST WWW server (#)..... 978,563 1,000,000 1,000,000 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.3 Provide leadership in harmonizing international
measurements and standards to facilitate
international trade. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadership positions held by
NIST staff on international
committees (#).............. 48 59 59 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 Improve the technological capability, productivity, and
competitiveness of small manufacturers.
5.2.1 Build an effective, nationally-integrated system of
manufacturing extension services that is widely
accessible to small businesses. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies served by extension 21,988 26,000 30,000 Output.
service providers (#) \1\.
Activities completed by 28,578 30,943 33,473 Output.
providers \2\ (#).
Increased sales ($M)......... 214 305 389 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anticipated increases for companies served and activities completed
for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are based on actual
increases between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 and MEP's goal
of increasing the system-wide penetration rate.
\2\ Anticipated increases for companies served and activities completed
for fiscal year 1998 and beyond are based on actual increases between
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 and MEP's goal of increasing the
system-wide penetration rate.
5.2.2 Introduce state-of-the-art technology and business
practices to a wide array of small- and medium-
sized manufacturers in the United States. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory savings by MEP 31 44 56 Outcome.
clients ($M).
Labor and material savings by 27 38 49 Outcome.
MEP clients ($M).
Client capital investment 156 222 284 Outcome.
($M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3 Assist U.S. businesses in continuously improving their
productivity and efficiency by adopting quality
management practices.
5.3.1 Develop and continuously improve the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award, broadly disseminate
criteria for evaluating performance, and promote
quality awareness and performance excellence. (TA)
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ TA/NIST will also use stakeholder review and economic impact
studies via the Alternative Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Program documents 494,217 600,000 625,000 Output.
requested from the WWW (#).
State and local quality award 56 60 65 Output.
programs supported (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2 Promote quality awareness and business excellence
practices of small service businesses and
manufacturers. (TA) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ TA/NIST will use stakeholder review and economic impact studies
via the Alternative Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Program documents 494,217 600,000 625,000 Output.
requested from the WWW (#).
State and local quality award 56 60 65 Output.
programs supported (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4 Accelerate technological innovation and the development
of new technologies that underpin future economic
growth.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ TA/NIST will also use economic impact studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.1 Encourage the development and rapid diffusion of high
risk, enabling technologies that generate broad-
based economic benefits through innovative
products, services, and industrial processes. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative amount of industry
cost-sharing commitments
over project lives ($B)..... 1.172 1.467 1.827 Outcome.
Participants (active 800 900 900 Output.
projects) (#).
Active projects including
those funded in current
fiscal year (#)............. 312 360 367 Output.
Projects funded over project 352 434 528 Output.
lives.
Technologies under 60 110 160 Outcome.
commercialization (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.2 Develop improved technological and organizational
mechanisms for supporting the rapid adoption of new
technologies. (TA) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In addition to these figures, TA/NIST will be developing
information on annual increases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitions completed per 7 9 9 Output.
year.
New project starts during 64 82 94 Output.
year.
Industry cost sharing 142 295 360 Output.
commitments for new project
starts.
Technologies under 60 120 160 Outcome.
commercialization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5. Coordinate and lead Presidential initiatives and
interagency efforts to enhance industry
competitiveness in partnership with industry,
academia, and the States.
5.5.1 Coordinate and lead interagency efforts to develop
the technology base for next generation
automobiles, promote technological achievement, and
foster international technology cooperation. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieve a successful
Partnership for a New
Generation of Vehicles
(PNGV) Peer Review conducted
by the National Research
Council..................... 1 1 1 Output.
Increase the number of high
quality National Medal of
Technology nomination
submissions (percent
increase)................... ........ ........ 20 Output.
Increase the number of Medal
nomination submissions from
women and ethnic minorities
(percent increase).......... ........ ........ 100 Output.
Increase the total media
coverage of the Medal
Program (percent increase).. ........ ........ 20 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5.2 Coordinate and lead interagency efforts to strengthen
technology partnerships between States and the
Federal government. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Innovation Partnership
program implementation
initiatives facilitating
State/Federal innovation
partnerships (#)........... ........ 2 3 Output.
Fund the Experimental Program
to Stimulate Competitive
Technology (EPSCoT) projects
funded (cumulative #)....... ........ 4 10 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
6.1 Help protect, promote, and expand intellectual property
rights system throughout the U.S. and abroad.
PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
$785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
6.1.1 Participate in international cooperative
arrangements. (PTO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Baseline \1\ -------------------- Key annual goal
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing countries provided with technical 47 47 52 Output.
assistance (#).
Technical assistance activities completed (#).. 59 59 64 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.
6.1.2 Cooperate with other government agencies to ensure
that intellectual property concerns are adequately
addressed. (PTO)
7.0 INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
7.1 Support the development of a National Information
Infrastructure (NII) that will be accessible to all
Americans.
NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
FTE.
7.1.1 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
program to assist educational, health care and
other social service entities in planning and
developing the telecommunications and information
infrastructure. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NII print materials 20,000 65,000 75,000 Output.
distributed (#).
Electronic access to ........ 11,000 11,000 Output.
information (#).
Presentations and contacts ........ 900 900 Output.
(#).
Applications received (#).... 924 750 750 Output.
Grants awarded (#)........... 55 40 40 Output.
Reviewers meet evaluation ........ 100 100 Output.
criteria (percent).
High risk sites visited ........ 100 100 Output.
(percent).
Awardees counseled (percent). ........ 100 100 Output.
Quarterly reports in ........ 100 100 Output.
compliance (percent).
Information Infrastructure
models for non-profit and
public service (#).......... 169 275 382 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.2 Improve delivery of communications products and
services to the public through Executive Branch
initiatives in legislative and regulatory forums.
(NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased identification of
new technologies and their
application to government
operations \1\.............. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Precise measurement tools do not presently exist in this area;
however, we are working with the telecommunications community to
develop rational approaches to assessing these issues.
7.1.3 Ensure that educational and cultural benefits of
public broadcasting are widely available, and the
use of telecommunications technologies to improve
effectiveness of distance learning. (NTIA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintain current access to public radios by
rural populations (new coverage) (#)........... 1,000,000 750,000 750,000 Output.
Maintain current access to public television by
rural populations (new coverage) (#)........... 50,000 30,000 30,000 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.2 Advocate international telecommunications policies to
help open international markets and promote U.S.
interests.
7.2.1 Improve international competitiveness of the U.S.
telecommunications industry. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Lessons learned'' packages
completed for foreign
governments (#)............. ........ ........ 175 Output.
Extent of adoption of ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
packages.
Outreach plans and reports on ........ 10 20 Output.
foreign markets (#).
Improvement in liaison with ........ ........ 100 Outcome.
U.S. companies (#).
Interagency policy ........ 5 12 Output.
identification exercises (#).
Cost-effective programs
funded from private sector
sources for U.S.
telecommunications
objectives (#).............. ........ ........ 10 Output.
Outreach meeting held with 2 4 6 Output.
U.S. carriers (#).
Increased U.S. companies ........ ........ ........ Output.
competing for new markets
\1\.
Adoption of U.S. Internet
standards in the
international community \1\. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NTIA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
measuring these impacts.
7.3 Set policies for efficiently and effectively managing
the Federal use of the radio spectrum, and prepare
for international radio spectrum setting
conferences of the ITU.
7.3.1 Ensure that government needs for vital
telecommunications services are met nationally and
internationally. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of database of
allocated bands and of
automated method for
accessing/using database.... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planning and initial implementation steps.
\2\ Fully implemented.
7.3.2 Coordinate U.S. preparations for international
frequency allocation conferences and lead U.S.
delegations to these conferences. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of long-range
plans to meet U.S. spectrum
needs....................... ........ ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Develop draft.
\2\ Complete implementation.
7.4 Provide leadership in developing telecommunications
policy initiatives in emerging areas of national
priority.
7.4.1 Implement the President's Global Electronic Commerce
initiative regarding the governance of the Internet
domain system, Internet content restrictions, and
international privacy. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of private sector
approach to Internet
governance.................. ........ ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Draft for comment.
\2\ Fully implemented.
8.0 PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY
8.1 Promote safe navigation by revolutionizing U.S. marine
and air navigation, mapping and surveying; assist
commercial shipping in moving increased cargoes
safely and efficiently; and provide a precise
satellite-derived reference system as the basis for
the Nation's geographical positioning needs.
NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
12,358 FTE.
8.1.1 Build, maintain and deliver a digital nautical
charting database to underpin new electronic
navigational systems which integrate satellite
positioning, tidal heights and currents, radars and
sonars, and navigational aids; and update nautical
surveys using full-bottom coverage hydrographic
technologies. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nautical charts linked to
geographic data (Vector
Charts) available in digital
data base (percent)......... 25 80 100 Output.
Nautical paper chart suite 23 35 40 Output.
updated (percent).
Critical area survey backlog 12 16 19 Output.
reduced (percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1.2 Provide mariners with predictions of water level,
tides and currents, and weather conditions in major
ports. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Water Level
Observation stations
modernized (percent)........ 78 80 75 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1.3 Transform the obsolete spatial reference frame into a
Global Positioning System (GPS)-based system of
precisely positioned markers and GPS continuously
operating reference stations to support the digital
revolution in mapping, charting, and surveying.
(NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuously Operating 53 65 75 Output.
Reference Stations installed
(#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.2 Improve short-term warning and forecast products and
services to enhance public safety and the Nation's
economic productivity by enhancing the ability to
observe, understand, and model the environment, and
effectively disseminate products and services to
users.
8.2.1 Maintain modernized National Weather Service
operations to continue improving the timeliness and
accuracy of short-range environmental predictions
which have immediate impact on individuals and many
sectors of the economy; improve customer service to
the public, emergency managers, the media, and
private forecasters through effective communication
and utilization of critical weather data and
information necessary for protection of life and
property. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash flood warning:
Lead time (min.)......... 40 40 42 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 83 83 85 Output.
No lead time (percent)... 27 27 27 Output.
Severe Thunderstorm Warnings:
Lead time (min).......... 18 18 19 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 84 84 84 Output.
Tornado Warnings:
Lead time (min.)......... 10 10 11 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 59 65 70 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.2.2 Maintain continuous operational satellite coverage
(of the Nation) critical for warnings and
forecasts. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accuracy of tropical cyclone
landfall warnings with 24
hour lead time (kilometers). \1\ 125 140 135 Output.
Temperature forecasts:
Accuracy (percent)....... 86 86 87 Output.
Freezing onset (percent). 76 77 78 Output.
Heavy snow forecasts: 45 50 55 Output.
Accuracy (percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1997 preliminary measure for tropical cyclone (or
hurricane) landfall warning is not representative of a typical
hurricane season as only one landfall storm occurred during the fiscal
year.
8.2.3 Strengthen observing and prediction systems through
scientific, technological and programmatic
advances, and international cooperation. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash flood warning:
Lead time (min.)......... 40 40 42 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 83 83 85 Output.
No lead time (percent)... 27 27 27 Output.
Severe Thunderstorm Warnings:
Lead time (min).......... 18 18 19 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 84 84 84 Output.
Tornado Warnings:
Lead time (min.)......... 10 10 11 Output.
Accuracy (percent)....... 59 65 70 Output.
Accuracy of tropical cyclone
landfall warnings with 24
hour lead time (kilometers). \1\ 140 135 125 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1997 preliminary measure for tropical cyclone (or
hurricane) landfall warning is not representative of a typical
hurricane season as only one landfall storm occurred during the fiscal
year.
Chapter 4-B: Science, Technology, and Information
(performance measures)
Chapter 4-B sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
for program activities described in Chapter 2 and links them to our
budget request.
Chapter 4-B of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
science, technology, and information. The performance measures are
numbered to correspond with the goals and objectives discussed in
Chapter 2.
1.0 CUTTING-EDGE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
1.1 Partner with industry to accelerate the development and
application of cutting-edge technologies.
US/OTP's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $10.0 million, with 50
FTE. NIST's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $715.0 million, with
3,295 FTE.
1.1.1 Anticipate and address the Nation's most important
needs for physical and information-based
measurements and standards. (TA) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department of Commerce is among the agencies participating
actively in the Research Round Table, which is developing consensus
approach to planning/measurement issues, such as this, under the
``Alternative Format'' provision of GPRA. The Alternative Format is
built upon peer review and economic impact studies. In addition to the
information shown here, Objective 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3 will use the
Alternative Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Reference Materials 1,278 1,293 1,308 Output.
(SRM) available (#).
SRM units sold (#)........... 39,358 38,928 38,142 Output.
Standard Reference database 58 60 62 Output.
titles available (#).
SRD units distributed (#).... 5,102 5,200 5,300 Output.
Calibrations and tests 8,902 9,000 8,900 Output.
performed (#).
National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation laboratories
enrolled (#)................ 854 900 900 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2 Introduce state-of-the-art technology and business
practices to a wide array of small- and medium-
sized manufacturers in the United States. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory savings by MEP 31 44 56 Outcome.
clients ($M).
Labor and material savings by 27 38 49 Outcome.
MEP clients ($M).
Client capital investment 156 222 284 Outcome.
($M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3 Encourage the development and rapid diffusion of high
risk, enabling technologies that generate broad-
based economic benefits through innovative
products, services, and industrial processes. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative amount of industry
cost-sharing commitments
over project lives ($B)..... 1.172 1.467 1.827 Output.
Participants (active 800 900 900 Output.
projects) (#).
Competitions completed/year 7 9 9 Output.
(#).
Active projects including
those funded in current
fiscal year (#)............. 312 360 367 Output.
Projects funded over project 352 434 528 Output.
lives.
Technologies under 60 120 160 Outcome.
commercialization (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Collect, preserve, and disseminate government
technical, scientific, and business information.
1.2.1 Play a leadership role in assisting Federal agencies
with dissemination of their scientific, technical,
and business information. (TA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information products cataloged and indexed (#).. 109,453 120,000 120,000 Output.
Items in archives (#)........................... 2,661,365 2,781,365 2,901,365 Output.
Items distributed (#)........................... 1,558,179 1,401,490 1,437,000 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.2 Provide services and infrastructure to control
scientific, technical, and business related
information, and increase the effectiveness of
systems for locating and delivering information in
the form required by customers. (TA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents stored electronically (#)........... 44,290 175,000 425,000 Output.
Documents Reproduced from Electronically
Stored Media (#)............................. 78,481 150,000 300,000 Output.
System accessed (#)........................... 15,279,953 23,000,000 25,000,000 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 Conduct domestic and international policy analyses on
issues affecting the research, development, and
commercialization of technology and related issues
affecting U.S. competitiveness and in partnership
with industry, academia, and the States--develop
policy options to improve U.S. economic growth, job
creation and quality of life.
1.3.1 Monitor and assess what competitor nations are doing
to support R&D and enhance their industrial
competitiveness. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publish reports and
disseminate analysis of
other nation's technology
policies, to inform U.S.
policy making and assist
U.S. industry (#)........... 2 2 2 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.2 Monitor and assess the technological strengths,
weaknesses and barriers faced by U.S. industrial
sectors, and translate those assessments into
policy options with partners in industry, academia,
and the States. (TA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conduct roundtable
discussions to obtain
industry perspectives on
high priority technology
policy issues (#)........... 5 2 3 Output.
Conduct PACE events to foster
technology partnerships
between the Federal
government, industry, and
academia (#)............... 1 4 4 Output.
Undertake major advocacy
effort to turn USOTP
analysis into actions (#)... 1 1 1 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
2.1 Implement seasonal to interannual climate forecasts.
NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
12,358 FTE.
2.1.1 Deliver useful seasonal to interannual climate
forecasts for the U.S. and collaborate in a
multinational effort to generate and use similar
forecasts; assess the impacts of climate
variability on human activity and economic
potential, and improve public education so that
climate forecasts are understood and acted upon.
(NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENSO forecasts:
(Accuracy correlation) .81 .81 .81 Output.
\1\.
Lead time (years) \2\.... .50 .50 .50 Output.
U.S. Temperature prediction:
Skill score (percent) \3\ 19 20 20 Output.
Lead Time (years)........ .50 .50 .50 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accuracy is the pattern correlation of the forecast relative to
actual conditions.
\2\ Lead time is measured in years (e.g. 0.25 is one season).
\3\ Skill score means 100 times the number of correct forecasts divided
by the number of forecasts made (N), with adjustments for those cases
where the actual conditions are equal to the climatological or random-
choice expectation (E).
2.1.2 Enhance global observing and data systems required to
provide data for the initialization and validation
of model predictions of seasonal to interannual
climate variations. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENSO observing system ........ 50 75 Output.
operational (percent).
New and improved data sets 7 12 12 Output.
developed and produced (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1.3 Invest in process and modeling research that leads to
improved predictability of temperature and rainfall
distributions. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Scale
International Project
research programs
implemented (percent)....... 40 40 60 Output.
Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land
System (GOALS) experiments
implemented (percent)....... 15 15 20 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Predict and assess decadal to centennial change.
2.2.1 Characterize the agents and processes that force
decadal to centennial climate change; develop
models for the prediction of long-term climate
change, carry out scientific assessments, and
provide human impacts information. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational ozone stations to
measure greenhouse gases
(#)......................... 2 2 3 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.2 Examine the role of the ocean as a reservoir of both
heat and carbon dioxide to address a major source
of uncertainty in climate models. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of study in the
North Atlantic to determine
the air-sea carbon dioxide
flux (percent).............. 10 50 100 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.3 Ensure a long-term climate record by enhancing
domestic and international weather networks,
observing procedures, and information management
systems; guide the rehabilitation of the ozone
layer by providing the scientific basis for policy
choices associated with ozone-depleting compounds.
(NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional data sets
developed and improved for
detecting multi-decadal and
multi-century changes and
variations in climate (#)... 16 15 15 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2.4 Provide the scientific basis for better air quality
by improving the understanding of high surface
ozone episodes in rural areas and by establishing a
monitoring network to detect cleaner air quality.
(NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion of initial state
of science assessment for
rural ozone chemistry
(percent)................... 50 75 100 Output.
Completion of upgrade and
operation of early detection
of air quality stations
(percent)................... 30 50 60 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
3.1 Promote awareness of, and provide effective access to,
patent and trademark information.
PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
$785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
3.1.1 Consistently achieve customer satisfaction by
understanding and supporting customer needs. (PTO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Baseline \1\ -------------------- Key annual goal
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Satisfaction with Key Products and
Services (percent)............................ 84 ........ 90 Outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.
3.1.2 Promote the use and accessibility of intellectual
property information. (PTO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Baseline \1\ -------------------- Key annual goal
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Satisfaction with Ease of Access 84 ........ 90 Outcome.
(percent).
Top 100 Metropolitan Areas Served by Patent and
Trademark Depository Libraries (percent)...... 55 55 58 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.
3.1.3 Develop the highest quality information products and
services which deliver information when, where, and
in the format needed. (PTO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Baseline \1\ -------------------- Key annual goal
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Products and Services Meeting Schedules or
Cycle Time Standards (percent)................ 63 63 80 Output.
Top 100 Metropolitan Areas Served by Patent and
Trademark Depository Libraries (percent)...... 55 55 58 Output.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.
4.0 PROMOTING AN ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRUCTURE
4.1 Support the development of a National Information
Infrastructure that will be accessible to all
Americans.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Precise measurement tools do not presently exist in this area;
however, we are working with the telecommunications community to
develop rational approaches to assessing these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
FTE.
4.1.1 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
program of grants to assist State and local
governments, universities and school systems,
hospitals and other health care providers, and
other social service entities. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased number of entities
connected to the NII
(schools, libraries (percent
increase)................... 40 75 90 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.2 Improve the delivery of communications services and
products to the public, through Executive Branch
attention to the issues, legislative initiatives,
and Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
dockets. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintain in access for rural 95 95 95 Output.
areas (percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.3 Improve the international competitiveness of the U.S.
telecommunications industry and the ability of U.S.
businesses and consumers to have access to high
quality, reasonably-priced international services.
(NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased adoption of U.S.- ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
supported standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Engage in technical research to improve
telecommunications system planning, design, and
evaluation and to support government and industry
efforts in these areas.
4.2.1 Ensure that all government needs for vital
telecommunications services can be satisfied
nationally and internationally. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased identification of
new technologies for
governmental application.... 60 80 80 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2.2 Ensure that the educational and cultural benefits of
public broadcasting are available to as many people
as possible; educational entities are able to use a
variety of telecommunications technologies to
improve the effectiveness of distance learning;
minorities and women have increased access and
control of public telecommunications; and blind and
hearing-impaired persons are able to participate
more fully in society through the use of
telecommunications. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop international
Internet standards for
content identification and
promote their use as a non-
governmental solution to
cross-border policy issues.. ........ ........ 1 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.0 COLLECTING AND DISSEMINATING ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
5.1 Provide Gross Domestic Product and related national,
regional, and international economic statistics in
the most accurate, timely, cost-effective, and
easily accessible way possible.
ESA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $53.7 million, with 570
FTE. Census' fiscal year 1999 is $1.19 billion, with 16,510 FTE.
5.1.1 Reduce respondent burden and increase accuracy and
timeliness through electronic filing of BEA's
surveys of direct investment and international
services. (ESA)
5.1.2 Increase accuracy, reliability, and timeliness,
across the national, regional, and international
programs, through standardized data transfer and
on-line interactive editing and processing systems
for source data. (ESA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase accuracy, reliability and Retired mainframe computer Re-engineer at least 20 of the Expedite re-engineering of Outcome.
timeliness across national after migrating over 90 highest priority computer remaining computer
regional and international applications to local area applications to improve applications in priority order.
programs. network. timeliness, quality, and
accessibility of BEA's data by
better utilizing new system
capabilities..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.1.3 Increase the timeliness and accessibility of data
products to a wide range of customers through
Internet and other electronic gateways. (ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses on near term
prospects and composition of
economic activity in U.S.... 50 50 50 Outcome.
Provide focal point for data
dissemination:
Internet subscriptions... 7,000 8,000 9,300 Outcome.
Internet site licenses... 700 800 925 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 Provide products and services of greater value and
satisfaction to Census national and local
information base customers.
5.2.1 Develop customer- and market-driven Census products.
(ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys converted to North
American Industrial
Classification Code System
(NAICS) (percent)........... ........ ........ 70 Output.
Business register converted ........ ........ 100 Output.
to NAICS (percent).
Releases of Principal Federal
Economic Indicators (#):
Monthly.................. 10 10 10 Output.
Quarterly................ 3 3 3 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2.2 Provide easier access to, and greater customer
satisfaction with, Census products and services.
(ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS-based 1997 census ........ ........ 350/50 Output.
reports released (# and
percent).
Publish 1998 American ........ ........ 9 Output.
Community Survey results.
Participation in the American
Community Survey (ACS) (# of
sites)...................... ........ ........ 40 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3 Provide information on economic events and the workings
of the economy.
5.3.1 Provide information, analyses and guidance on pending
economic policy decisions. (ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyses on the near-term
prospects and composition of
economic activity in U.S (#) 50 50 50 Output.
Analyses and reports on
capability and utilization
of small, disadvantaged
businesses.................. ........ ........ ........ Output.
Policymakers provided with
comprehensive, accurate and
timely assessments on the
economy..................... ........ ........ ........ Output.
Policymakers provided with
bases for determining levels
of minority business
participation in Federal
procurement programs........ ........ ........ ........ Output.
Major studies, working paper
and reports on U.S.
industrial performance...... 12 12 12 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.3.2 Provide a focal point for data dissemination bringing
together business, economic, and trade statistics
in formats that are easy to use and located at a
``one-stop shop.'' (ESA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAT-USA Internet 7,000 8,000 9,300 Output.
subscriptions (#).
STAT-USA Internet site 700 800 925 Output.
licenses.
National Trade Data Bank free
distribution to Federal
Depository Libraries........ 1,091 1,091 1,091 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH EXPORTS
6.1 Employ ITA's comprehensive industry sector, technical,
and country information bases to counsel U.S. firms
(especially small and medium-sized firms) on
appropriate export strategies, and provide
comprehensive and up-to-date information to these
firms to support business strategies, and related
analyses to the USTR for trade negotiations.
ITA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $286.5 million, with 2,329
FTE.
6.1.1 Expand and enrich ITA's general trade, industry
sector, technical, and country information, and
increase their utility to ITA's industry clients'
export decision making. (ITA)
6.1.2 Broaden and improve ITA's information distribution
network (e.g., use of the Internet, increased
support of the National Trade Data Bank, etc.) to
ensure that information reaches a larger universe
of small- and medium-sized companies in a more
timely fashion. (ITA)
6.1.3 Expand and improve marketing activities undertaken to
make ITA's clients more aware of ITA's extensive
information resources. (ITA)
6.1.4 Complete identification of the trade agreements
negotiated by the U.S. and construct a searchable
database of these agreements. (ITA)
6.1.5 Continue to update the Commercial Service's client
contact and management system, and migrate the
client information to a widely-used and robust
application platform to maintain our ability to
provide trade and economic data worldwide. (ITA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 \1\ 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matching services (#)........ 1,384 1,410 1,410 Output.
Custom agency reports (#).... 14,938 17,372 17,648 Output.
Satisfied customers (percent) ........ ........ ........ Output.
\2\.
Reports distributed (#)...... 502,425 524,242 542,619 Output.
New-to-export firms (#)...... 10,021 10,541 10,649 Outcome.
New-to-market firms (#)...... 33,957 35,339 36,806 Outcome.
Value of gross exports ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
supported ($) \3\.
Gross jobs supported (#) \3\. ........ ........ ........ Outcome.
Firms that actually export 30 32 32 Outcome.
(percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The measures presented below display aggregate data for all of the
five ITA ``objectives'' listed above.
\2\ ITA is examining several survey methodologies aimed at accurately
measuring customer satisfaction.
\3\ ITA's efforts to quantify ``additionality'' (i.e. value added from
its trade programs) and the related performance measures listed above
(``Dollar value of gross exports supported'' and ``Number of gross
jobs supported'') although focused, remain a work in progress.
6.2 Restructure export controls for the twenty-first
century, and facilitate transition of defense
industries.
BXA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $52.2 million, with 433
FTE.
6.2.1 Implement the Nation's encryption export policy.
(BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Encryption commitment plan 37 41 40 Output.
and progress report (#).
Encryption key recovery agent 9 50 100 Output.
reviews (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.2.2 Oversee domestic implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC) by the business community.
(BXA) \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The CWC is a new activity for BXA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWC inspections (#).......... ........ ........ 40 Output.
CWC facility agreements (#).. ........ ........ 140 Output.
Data declarations processed ........ ........ 2,000 Output.
(#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.2.3 Promote U.S. economic security, technological
competitiveness, and defense diversification. (BXA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic industry analyses 716 485 485 Output.
(#).
Value of facilitated exports 2.3 5.0 5.0 Outcome.
($B).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.0 PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS
7.1 Help both rural and urban communities incorporate
technology as a tool for their economic
development.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The measurements below apply to all objectives under Goal 7.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
FTE.
7.1.1 Help distressed communities plan for technology-led
economic development. (EDA)
7.1.2 Help distressed communities build infrastructure
necessary for technology-based economic
development, including business incubators,
industrial technology research centers and
laboratories, technical skills training centers,
and entrepreneurial development centers. (EDA)
7.1.3 Provide technical assistance to communities to
develop the networks and linkages necessary for
technology-based economic development, including
the creation of electronic networks and trade and
commerce organizations. (EDA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology-based Economic ............................... Technology-based economic Technology-based economic Outcome.
Development. development projects are development projects are
funded under EDA's regular funded under EDA's regular
program authorities. Outcomes program authorities. Outcomes
are measured as part of total are measured as part of total
program performance. program performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4-C: Stewardship of Resources and Assets
(performance measures)
Chapter 4-C sets forth goals, objectives, and performance measures
for program activities described in Chapter 3 and links them to our
budget request.
Chapter 4-C of the Annual Performance Plan contains goals,
objectives, and quantitative performance measures pertaining to
economic infrastructure. The performance measures in Chapter 4-C are
numbered to correspond to the goals and objectives discussed in Chapter
3.
1.0 PROTECT OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCES
1.1 Build sustainable fisheries that increase the Nation's
wealth and quality of life, support increased
fishing industry job opportunities, improve the
safety and wholesomeness of seafood resources, and
expand recreation opportunities.
NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $2.12 billion, with
12,358 FTE.
1.1.1 Assess the status of fishery resources, to improve
the scientific basis for policy decisions,
including the elimination of overfishing, the
rebuilding of overfished stocks, the conservation
of fish habitat, and the minimization of bycatch-
related mortality; advance fishery predictions
through research and applications. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish stocks assessed (of 231 79 79 79 Output.
identified) (percent).
Completion of information 85 90 95 Output.
technology procurement
(percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.2 Manage for economic growth and sustainable fisheries
by working with Fishery Management Councils,
foreign nations and others to plan for reducing
excessive fishing and capital investment; provide
research and services for fishery-dependent
industries to maximize the potential benefits from
the Nation's marine resource. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishery Management Plans with
controlled access
implemented (#)............. 25 26 27 Output.
Magnuson-Stevens Act ........ ........ 20 Output.
requirements met (percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1.3 Ensure adequate compliance with fishery regulations.
(NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleets using vessel
monitoring systems for
spatial/temporal regulations
(#)......................... 3 3 5 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Recover protected species through conserving marine
species, recovering those in danger of extinction,
and maintaining healthy marine ecosystems upon
which they depend.
1.2.1 Assess the status of, and impacts to, protected
species. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual investigations of 7 10 10 Output.
mortality of protected
species (#).
Annual review of conservation 11 7 11 Output.
program status (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2.2 Develop and implement conservation and recovery plans
for depleted marine mammals and endangered and
threatened species. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative recovery plans 10 25 25 Output.
developed (#).
Annual recovery plan priority 8 8 15 Outcome.
activities implemented (#).
Annual species with status 12 16 15 Outcome.
improved (#).
Cooperative conservation 4 10 10 Output.
programs implemented (#).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3 Sustain healthy coasts to promote more productive and
diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, cleaner
coastal waters for recreation and the production of
seafood, and achieve sustainable economies for
coastal communities based on well-planned
development and healthy ecosystems.
1.3.1 Protect, conserve and restore coastal habitats and
their biodiversity. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres of coastal habitat 12,000 26,000 43,000 Outcome.
restored (#).
Resource damage cases settled 26 29 32 Output.
(#).
Interagency restoration 16 20 55 Output.
projects (#).
Fishery management plans with
essential fish habitat
provisions (#).............. ........ 1 8 Output.
Coastal management tools
improved (#):
Monitoring............... 8 10 12 Output.
Remote sensing........... 7 7 7
Ecosystem models......... 6 7 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.2 Promote clean coastal waters to sustain living marine
resources and ensure safe recreation, healthy
seafood and economic vitality. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal states with approved
nonpoint pollution programs
(of 35) (percent)........... 77 83 91 Output.
Coastal states with
implemented nonpoint
pollution pro- grams....... ........ ........ 20 Output.
Percent of the 40 largest
U.S. coastal ecosystems
with:
Reduced risk from 15 20 25 Outcome.
hazardous chemicals.
Water quality assessments 20 25 28
Toxics assessments....... 20 25 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.3.3 Foster well-planned and revitalized coastal
communities that sustain coastal economies, are
compatible with the natural environment, minimize
the risks from nature's hazards, and provide access
to coastal resources for the public's use and
enjoyment. (NOAA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal states with approved
coastal management programs
(of 35 states) (percent).... 89 94 97 Output.
Number Coastal management
tools improved for:
Natural hazard risk 2 2 7 Outcome.
assessment.
Coastal hazard mitigation ........ ........ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.0 MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
2.1 Grant exclusive rights, for limited times, to inventors
for their discoveries, and enhance trademark
protection.
PTO's fiscal year 1999 Salaries and Expenses spending will be
$785.5 million, with 6,358 FTE.
2.1.1 Maximize the business contribution of patents by
reducing cycle time for inventions, reengineering
business processes, achieving electronic processing
of patent applications, assessing fees commensurate
with resource utilization and customer efficiency,
and exceeding customer expectations through the
competencies and empowerment of employees. (PTO)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Baseline \1\ -------------------- Key annual goal
1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original invention filings (#)................. 158,427 191,700 201,300 Output.
Applications disposed (#)...................... 180,196 194,600 218,700 Output.
Applications disposed per examiner FTE (#)..... 87.2 87.2 89.4 Output.
Average cycle time of original inventions
processed (months)........................... 14.6 15.7 13.8 Outcome.
Original inventions achieving 12 Month or less
cycle time (percent).......................... 47 50 75 Outcome.
Customer satisfaction (percent)................ 50 57 65 Outcome.
Employee satisfaction (percent)................ 41 65 70 Outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For PTO, the Baseline is actuals from fiscal year 1996.
2.1.2 Maximize the business contribution of trademarks by
reducing pendency time, implementing reengineered
processes, and transforming trademark processing
into a fully electronic operation. (PTO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trademark applications filed 200,640 250,000 275,000 Output.
(#).
Applications disposed per FTE 221 206 204 Output.
(#).
Pendency to first action 5.9 5.9 3.9 Output.
(months).
Pendency time to disposal/ 16.5 16.0 15.5 Output.
registration (months).
Customer satisfaction 64 70 80 Outcome.
(percent).
Employee satisfaction 42 65 75 Outcome.
(percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.0 SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
3.1 Promote the development of an advanced
telecommunications and information infrastructure
to efficiently serve the needs of all Americans,
create job opportunities for American workers, and
enhance the competitiveness of U.S. industry in the
global marketplace.
NTIA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $47.9 million, with 288
FTE.
3.1.1 Set policies for efficiently and effectively managing
the federal use of the radio spectrum, and prepare
for international radio spectrum-setting
conferences of the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU). (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-range plans to meet
public safety and emergency
needs....................... 1 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amendment.
3.1.2 Support the development of a National Information
Infrastructure (NII) that will be accessible to all
Americans. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of models for
utilization of the
information infrastructure
(# reports)................. 1 1 1 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.3 Promote national policies to increase competition and
efficient investment in telecommunications and
information industries, enhance consumer welfare
and economic and social opportunities for all, and
remove impediments to the growth and vitality of
these sectors. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase in the national
average for telephone
penetration (percent)....... 93.9 94 94.1 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.4 Administer the Information Infrastructure Grants
program which provides grants to assist State and
local governments, universities and school systems,
hospitals and other health care providers, and
other social service entities. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase numbers of entities 40 75 90 Output.
connected to the NII
(percent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.5 Ensure that all government needs for vital
telecommunications services can be satisfied
nationally and internationally. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering reviews.......... 60 80 80 Output.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1.6 Ensure that the educational and cultural benefits of
public broadcasting are available to as many people
as possible, educational entities are able to use a
variety of telecommunications technologies to
improve the effectiveness of distance learning,
minorities and women have increased access and
control of public telecommunications, and blind and
hearing-impaired persons are able to participate
more fully in society through the use of
telecommunications. (NTIA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------ Key annual
1997 1998 1999 goal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop international
Internet standards for
content identification and
promote their use as a non-
government solution to cross-
border policy issues........ ........ ........ 1 Outcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES
4.1 Enable communities that have acquired military
installations during the recent defense downsizing
to convert their use to civilian functions for
local economic benefit.
EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $398.0 million, with 285
FTE.
4.1.1 Help communities design and implement strategies for
adjusting to base closures or natural disasters
that are causing, or threaten to cause, serious
structural damage to the underlying economic base.
(EDA)
4.1.2 Help communities replace, transform or expand
infrastructure facilities of military installations
to retain or create substantial employment
potential. (EDA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Adjustment................. ............................... The Defense Adjustment program The Defense Adjustment program Outcome.
uses the tools available under uses the tools available under
EDA's other programs, EDA's other programs,
especially the Economic especially the Economic
Adjustment program. Outcomes Adjustment program. Outcomes
are measured as part of total are measured as part of total
program performance. program performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Enable communities to achieve long-term economic
recovery from the devastation of their productive
resources by natural disasters.
4.2.1 Help communities adversely affected by natural
disasters to improve their capacity for economic
recovery or adjustment. (EDA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disaster Assistance................ ............................... Disaster assistance projects Disaster assistance projects Outcome.
are funded under EDA's regular are funded under EDA's regular
program authorities. Outcomes program authorities. Outcomes
are measured as part of total are measured as part of total
program performance. program performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Enable distressed communities to practice and implement
sustainable economic development.
4.3.1 Help communities develop an integrated approach that
incorporates early local planning, full
participation of stakeholders, and a comprehensive
strategy to conserve resources and sustain
community and quality of life. (EDA)
4.3.2 Help communities redevelop Brownfields. (EDA)
4.3.3 Help distressed communities develop eco-industrial
parks and respond to economic dislocation caused by
national environmental policies. (EDA)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key annual goal
1997 1998 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainable Development............ ............................... Sustainable development Sustainable development Outcome.
projects are funded under projects are funded under
EDA's regular program EDA's regular program
authorities. Outcomes are authorities. Outcomes are
measured as part of total measured as part of total
program performance. program performance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. In preparation for fiscal year 1999, each bureau was tasked
with developing a balanced set of performance measures which contained
output as well as outcome measures. These measures are contained in our
Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan and in our budget
justifications.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results? If so, who has access to the information--senior management
only, or mid and lower-level program managers, too? Are you able to
gain access easily to various performance-related data located
throughout your various information systems?
Answer. As is true for all agencies, the sources, reporting
periods, reporting systems, and access to the systems containing our
data vary. Some information is available on an ongoing basis, while
other data are produced only annually. Under GPRA, our initial emphasis
has been on assuring that data are available at least on a schedule
that ties to the budget analysis cycle.
Most information is at the senior program official level, but is
available to the bureau and Departmental planning/budgeting process as
needed, for GPRA purposes.
Question. The GPRA requires that your agency's Annual Performance
Plan establish performance goals to define the level of performance to
be achieved by each program activity set forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty? Would the linkages be
clearer if your budget account structure were modified? If so, how
would you propose to modify it and why do you believe such modification
would be most useful both to your agency and to this committee than the
present structure? How would such modification strengthen
accountability for program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. We are able to link our budget structure to our set of
goals and objectives at the bureau or account level. However, since
many of our bureaus/accounts contain more than one program for which
there are goals and objectives, we are among the agencies lacking an
information system or cost accounting system which can support an exact
tie between our program resources and our program accomplishments at a
detailed level.
We believe that the improvements needed fall into the areas of
information or cost accounting systems, rather than changes in the
budget account structure, are needed. Therefore, we have two system
development initiatives underway. First, we are developing the Commerce
Administrative Management System (CAMS), a Department-wide approach to
integrating all management systems into a single relational database,
revolving around a Core Financial System (CFS). We are also creating a
Budget Formulation and Tracking System, which will automate the budget
formulation process and link it fully with CAMS and program planning/
measuring activities.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
the Office of Management and Budget, this year for the first time all
Federal agencies are required to have a system of Managerial Cost
Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing (ABC),''
whereby the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an
agency. What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. All of the bureaus in the Department of Commerce have
already met the requirements of the FASAB cost accounting standard, but
in some cases they are using manual systems. All of our bureaus will
eventually implement an automated cost accounting system and adopt ABC.
In fact, an ABC-capable module is included in the new CFS that we are
intending to implement Department-wide after a thorough pilot at the
Bureau of the Census. We expect to implement the CFS cost accounting
module systematically as part of bureau implementation of the
Department's CFS.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. The systems we are implementing are designed to capture the
``full'' cost of an output as defined in the FASAB standard. By
definition full costs include such items as administration, employee
benefits, and depreciation. All of the bureaus now have in place
sufficient systems that can consistently and regularly provide the full
and accurate cost of each program.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes, the relationships between dollars spent on a program,
cost of activities and results are presently available from all of the
bureaus and are currently being costed out. However, there is a
distinction in how this process takes place in each of the bureaus.
Some of the bureaus have automated this process and some can only
perform it on a manual basis.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that: To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses? Are there any factors, such as
inexperience in making estimates for certain activities or lack of
data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. We believe that the performance measures provided in our
budget justifications and Annual Performance Plan comprise a useful
basis for negotiating our funding needs with the Congress, and we look
forward to an ongoing discussion over these measures. We believe that
most of them are sufficiently mature to allow for funding decisions to
be made.
At the same time, we are among the agencies with programs that are
difficult to measure in simplistic ways. For example, we are active in
the Research Round Table, the group of agencies with long-term
scientific Research and Development (R&D) programs which has evolved an
``Alternate Format'' to the performance measurement processes used by
easier-to-measure programs. The ``Alternative Format'' is based on peer
review, tailored interim measures which are relevant to this specific
type of science, and supportive data. For fiscal year 1999, we propose
to use this format in some of our research programs at the National
Institute of Science and Technology. In addition, we believe that there
are other program areas which require longer periods in order for
results to become clear (including economic development and
environmental preservation) or which have multiple sources of input and
impact (such as law enforcement and international trade).
We believe that our resource estimates have been highly accurate
over time. The occurrences of changing estimates has been localized to
topics of emerging knowledge (such as the Weather Service Modernization
effort) or ``first-time-ever'' initiatives where there are no
estimating benchmarks to rely on.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. We do not see the need for substantive changes to our
Strategic Plan at the present time. The process of developing an
effective Strategic Plan is a difficult one, and the Plan we provided
to the Congress in September 1997 contains the goals and objectives we
will use for managing our programs over the next few years. We are
prepared to revise the Commerce Strategic Plan in three years, as
required under the Act.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Question. On Tuesday, March 3, 1998, Treasury Secretary Rubin and
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the Appropriations
Foreign Operations Subcommittee. A good part of their testimony focused
on how the IMF's conditions for receiving financial assistance will
result in further opening of Asian economies like Thailand, Indonesia,
and South Korea.
What actions will the Department of Commerce and the International
Trade Administration be taking to make the most of this market-opening
opportunity for the American business community?
Answer. The Commerce Department and ITA took steps early on to
ensure that the financial crisis in Asia would not deter market access
for U.S. businesses. We conducted a fact-finding mission to Asia in
order to assess the situation first hand. In January, Ambassador David
Aaron, Under Secretary for ITA, announced the Commerce Department's
four-point initiative to help the U.S. business community deal with the
crisis and to continue to successfully do business there. Our four-
point program includes:
--Mounting a comprehensive effort to assemble analysis and market
information to help companies keep abreast of the rapidly
changing Asian landscape. This analysis, prepared by Senior
Commercial Officers of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service
(US&FCS) based in Asia, is distributed to US&FCS export
assistance centers and ITA's Trade Information Center to use in
ongoing counseling efforts.
--Increasing the number of high-level visits to key Asian countries
for fact-finding and to ensure that markets remain open to U.S.
firms.
--Increasing the number of major conferences and seminars to be held
in cities across the country that will focus on issues critical
to companies by providing updated economic information, lessons
learned by other companies who continue to be successful in
Asia, and advice on how exporters can overcome the current
difficulties and continue their Asian business operations.
--Establishing a special Asian information program within the
Department's Trade Information Center (tel. 1-800-USA-TRADE),
that will make all Commerce Department information on Asia
easily accessible to U.S. exporters.
In conjunction with this four point initiative, the Department's
Senior Commercial Officers (SCO's) in the ASEAN markets of East Asia
met last month to develop a region-wide strategy for reporting on the
crisis and counseling U.S. firms. Additionally, all East Asia SCO's are
meeting with Departmental management in Los Angeles this month. In
concert with other export-promoting agencies like the Trade and
Development Agency and Ex-Im Bank as well as local multipliers like
American Chambers of Commerce, the commercial sections have developed a
joint approach to informing and guiding U.S. companies active in the
host-country market or seeking new business opportunities. The
commercial sections counsel U.S. companies on getting paid during the
crisis, but also on taking advantage of the dollars' strength to pursue
mergers and acquisitions opportunities, and provide guidance on the
changes brought about by the crisis itself and by host-country
compliance with IMF programs. We are also monitoring the effects of the
crisis on trade barriers and developing case studies of its impact on
various industry sectors. In addition, our commercial sections are
electronically submitting dozens of up-to-the-minute reports, promptly
downloaded to the Internet, detailing the impact of the crisis on
American business.
Our Import Administration unit's Subsidy Enforcement Office is
stepping up its enforcement efforts, particularly in light of the Asian
financial crisis, to closely monitor the economic policies of IMF
funding recipients to ensure that they do not unfairly increase exports
through export or production-related subsidy programs. The focus of
this monitoring is to ensure compliance with the subsidy-related
conditions of the IMF rescue packages and to uncover potential subsidy
programs that may be actionable under U.S. countervailing duty law or
the WTO Subsidies Agreement.
For the time being and near future, we have scheduled the following
outreach events which will focus on Asia:
--The Asia Pacific Business Outlook Conference in Los Angeles (March
16-18), with the University of Southern California as partner;
--The ASEAN Ambassadors and Senior Commercial Officers' Tour (June 1-
16), which will visit Phoenix, Kansas City, Greenville, SC,
Washington, DC, and New York City, with the U.S.-ASEAN Business
Council and Department of State as partners;
--The Korea Caravan (June 1-12), which will visit Chicago, Cleveland,
Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Omaha, St. Louis, Dallas,
Houston, and Denver, with the Korea Economic Institute and
Department of State as partners; and
--Several seminars have been scheduled in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Portland, Oregon, and Durham, North Carolina.
opening of asian economies
Question. What new opportunities do you see this opening of Asian
economies presenting to small and mid-sized American companies?
Answer. In spite of the crisis, Asian governments will selectively
continue financing major projects to which U.S. firms are well-
positioned to contribute because of their recognized expertise. This is
especially true in the construction, environmental, information-
technology and power-production sectors, in countries like Korea,
Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Even as the nations affected by
the crisis seek to increase their exports, they need to import
indispensable materials and components, as well as the latest
technology--all of which often come from U.S. suppliers. U.S. firms
willing to accept delayed payments over the short term and to bring
financing or take an equity position in certain projects can actually
do better now than before the crisis. Service providers in the high-
tech sector are in demand, but may have to adjust their clients'
payment schedule. U.S. software firms, in particular, are making
headway in the Asian markets, especially with customized products to
banks and other finance-based corporations. In general, U.S. firms can
benefit from the trend toward outsourcing services by local companies
forced to downsize. U.S. companies can also expand or maintain their
presence by importing to the country of destination and selling to
their distributors in the local currency. Chain convenience stores,
too, remain accessible and eager customers for U.S.-made consumer
goods.
Furthermore, the IMF packages are different for each country, yet
in every case, the reforms are intended to strengthen the Asian
economies over the longer term. In the case of Indonesia, if reforms
are implemented as pledged, this would result in the ultimate
elimination of many monopolies and cartels, remove most Government
support for national car and national airplane projects, and
rationalize tariffs and remove non-tariff barriers. Such changes would
create further business opportunities for U.S. firms while producing a
more open, transparent market in which to do business.
In Thailand, many firms are re-evaluating their plans because of
the economic turmoil. However, reports of international companies'
expanding or looking for opportunities to expand operations are
surfacing. The General Electric Capital's announcement of the
acquisition of a 49 percent stake in Asia Finance Public Company is an
example. Foreign investment opportunities will also result from the
Thai government's planned privatization of state-owned enterprises.
In Korea, the IMF program has resulted in new opportunities for
American firms in certain industries. The program for Korea will
increase long-term opportunities in the financial services sector,
since ceilings on foreign equity are being removed, and financial
service commitments made in the OECD are being bound in the WTO. The
IMF program should also have a broad impact on the general transparency
and openness to imports of the Korean system.
In a review of the impact of the IMF program on Korea's
environmental sector, it was noted that although existing government
projects will be affected by the won's devaluation, domestic
environmental companies will continue to need the latest technology,
much of which can come from the United States. In addition, the new
government is committed to refocusing attention on the environmental
sector, providing new opportunities for American firms.
The Department of Commerce will assist American companies to take
advantage of opportunities which might present themselves through
aggressive advocacy, up-to-date information on Asian markets, working
through the TPCC to discover additional financing mechanisms, and in
any other effective manner.
colorado's role in u.s. competitiveness
Question. My home state of Colorado is geographically fortunate. It
is geographically centrally located in between America's Eastern and
Western Seaboards. It is also roughly geographically equal-distant
between Europe and Asia. Furthermore, Denver is also home to a new,
state of the art airport, Denver International Airport (DIA). Colorado
also has a highly skilled and internationally oriented workforce. These
collective attributes give Colorado key strengths that the United
States needs to compete in the increasingly competitive international
economy.
Do you agree that these factors enable Colorado to play a key role
in advancing our national economic competitiveness?
Answer. The factors cited are definite advantages that Colorado has
for competing internationally. The location, highly skilled work force,
and well organized airport should encourage exporting.
However, each of these factors is complex. Despite Colorado's
proximity to Mexico, this southern neighbor ranked ninth among
Colorado's export markets in 1996. This was an improvement over the
previous year, but it appears our Colorado-based Export Assistance
Centers could place more emphasis on Colorado exporters looking at
Mexico as a potential market.
Japan last year purchased one-sixth of Colorado's $6 billion in
exports, including high-tech, medical equipment and technology,
consumer goods, and beef. It is possible the financial turmoil in Japan
and other Asian countries could make those markets more difficult to
penetrate during 1998, despite our increased efforts to assist Colorado
exporters in those markets. However, there is still strong Colorado
exporter interest in Asia which should provide long-term positive
results. On March 3, the Department of Commerce's office in Denver, the
U.S. Export Assistance Center (USEAC), organized a seminar for the
World Bank and the four regional multilateral development banks. The
USEAC brought officials from bank headquarters in Manila, London, and
Washington, DC to Denver to brief Colorado companies on business
opportunities through $45 billion worth of development bank-funded
projects. The Asian Development Bank received the highest interest
among the 110 attendees.
Canada is another country which offers a potentially lucrative
market for many Colorado exporters. Until recently, activities by the
USEAC in Denver and the Colorado International Trade office (which
cooperate very closely to maximize scarce resources) met with limited
success in their programs to promote exports to Canada. However, in the
summer of 1997, the USEAC sponsored a series of meetings in Colorado
Springs and Denver with the U.S. Commercial Attache in Toronto and a
commercial officer from the Canadian Consulate General in Minneapolis,
which covers Colorado, on the advantages of exporting to Canada. Eighty
companies attended these seminars and, several months later, three
Colorado companies participated in Canadian trade shows to locate
distributors for their products--pet store equipment and apparel. Two
of these small firms (one from Colorado Springs and the other from
Denver) made sales and found Canadian distributors. As a follow-up, our
Senior Commercial Officer for Canada, Mr. Dale Slaght, will participate
in World Trade Day on May 19-20 in Denver, sponsored by the World Trade
Center and the Export Assistance Center. Following this two-day event,
Mr. Slaght will travel to the Western Slope for meetings with exporters
from Glenwood Springs to Montrose. Similarly, the Director of our Trade
Center in Mexico City will participate in World Trade Day and meet with
Colorado exporters to discuss the Mexican market.
With respect to the Denver International Airport, the lack of
international flights into DIA and dissolution of a strong state
tourism authority in Colorado have impacted the level of international
tourism to the state. However, I hope the current direct British Air
flights from London to Denver will be followed by similar agreements
for other cities in the future.
Question. What actions can the Department of Commerce and the ITA
take to further develop this potential, both for Colorado and for the
Nation as a whole?
Answer. The Department is committed to developing our country's
strengths. Our USEAC, in Denver, which also includes the Small Business
Administration's International Office and the Export-Import Bank, has
ten employees and three offices that include assisting exporters in
four states (and part of a fifth).
In addition to continuing to serve our traditional constituency,
the Denver USEAC has begun to focus on the historically under-served
populations in Colorado and the three neighboring states for which it
has responsibility. In summer of 1997, the USEAC began regular visits
to Western Slope companies. As a result, we held an exporting seminar
there in December and will open an associate office, known as the
Export Center, in Montrose to serve Western Colorado. We also
anticipate the opening of one associate office in Wyoming this summer.
Our international trade specialists often visit exporters in their
factories or offices. In California or New York, our specialists can
drive from one appointment to another within minutes. In Colorado, a
round-trip air fare to Grand Junction or Pueblo can cost $300 to $350.
To enhance our capabilities in these regions outside Denver, the USEAC
is leading a Rural Initiative that will place Internet access, the
National Trade Data Bank (a goldmine of international market
information for exporters) and other tools for Electronic Commerce, to
assist isolated exporters. Our trade specialists will also travel to
these associate offices regularly to provide face-to-face export
advice.
During the last fiscal year the Denver USEAC assisted 150 companies
from 4 states to make at least 260 foreign sales that they would not
have made without USEAC help.
During the week of April 6, our director Nancy Charles-Parker will
visit your office to brief you and your staff on our services, which
can be of considerable assistance to your constituents. We will provide
``success stories'' documenting how our staff have facilitated specific
export sales, through information, our commercial network in 70 foreign
countries, advocacy, trade missions and shows, and market access
assistance. Additionally, Ms. Charles-Parker will participate in the
Reservation Economic Summit in Denver, April 7-9. The USEAC will
participate in an exporting workshop and have a booth on services for
Native American exporters.
colorado foreign trade zones [ftz's]
Question. What about establishing a portion of Colorado as an
International Trade Zone in order to promote international trade?
Answer. Foreign-trade zones are designated sites licensed by the
Foreign-Trade Zones Board that allow domestic activity involving
foreign items to take place prior to formal Customs entry; duty-free
treatment is accorded items that are re-exported and Customs duty
evaluations on items sold in the U.S. market are deferred until the
items leave the zone, thus, offsetting Customs advantages available to
overseas producers who compete with producers located in the United
States. Foreign-trade zones have a very positive impact in that they:
help facilitate and expedite international trade; encourage and
facilitate exports; help domestic plants improve their competitiveness
with foreign plants; assist state/local economic development efforts;
and help create employment opportunities. The FTZ regulations,
application guidelines, locations of zones and contact persons, details
of FTZ Board actions, and other general information can be found on the
Import Administration Web site under Foreign-Trade Zones:
www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/.
Colorado has two foreign-trade zones in the following locations:
--Denver (since 1985); sponsored by the City/County of Denver. This
zone consists of two general-purpose sites: a warehouse
facility in Denver, as well as a site at the Denver
International Airport. (Contact person--Randy Moore 303-640-
7100).
--Colorado Springs (since 1984), sponsored by the Colorado Springs
Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc. The zone consists of a site located at
the Colorado Center planned industrial park, adjacent to the
Colorado Springs Municipal Airport. A sub-zone site was
approved for Apple Computer, but it is inactive. (Contact
person--Robert Scott 719-471-8183).
Zone sponsors may apply to expand their zones. To do so, expansion
sites must be in an eligible location, and applicants must demonstrate
a need, a net positive economic effect and consistency with public
trade and economic development policy.
business relationships with russia
Question. I would like to bring to your attention the activities of
the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, based in Denver, Colorado. As
a member of their American Advisory Council, I have first-hand
familiarity with their many successes. The Russian-American Chamber of
Commerce is also distinguished by the fact that it is located far
outside of the Washington D.C. beltway.
The Russian-American Chamber of Commerce has achieved prominence as
a key national advocate favoring the expansion of U.S.-Russian
commercial relations and has played a significant role in the $5
billion American companies have invested in Russia today.
In the summer of 1997, during the Denver Summit of the Eight, the
Russian-American Chamber of Commerce hosted President Yeltsin for a
business roundtable with key American companies. It was the only
meeting, outside of the official Summit of Eight activities, that
President Yeltsin granted. This meeting resulted in a billion dollar
joint venture that is stimulating economic development and creating
jobs and income for both Russia and America.
Question. How high a priority does the Commerce Department place on
America's business partnership with Russia?
Answer. The Department of Commerce places very high priority on
significantly expanding trade and investment with Russia and devotes
considerable resources toward improving market access, creating more
favorable business conditions, identifying business opportunities, and
helping U.S. companies conclude commercial contracts. This is part of
our approach in helping Russia become a market-based democracy.
Question. What is the Department of Commerce doing towards this
end?
Answer. The Secretary of Commerce serves as the U.S. chairman of
the U.S.-Russia Business Development Committee (BDC) which, under the
auspices of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, works to remove legal,
regulatory, and practical impediments to trade and investment;
facilitate conclusion of commercial projects; develop information and
contacts in key industries and regions; and create synergy between
government and private sector resources and initiatives. Key issues
being addressed by the BDC include market access, taxation of business,
energy production sharing arrangements, standards, product
certification and customs procedures, rule of law, and crimes against
business. Working groups promote sectoral and regional business
development. The Counselor to the Department is the U.S. Ombudsman for
Energy and Commercial Cooperation with Russia. His ongoing
consultations with Russian government and parliamentary officials and
advocacy on behalf of U.S. companies are removing impediments and
building a track record of successful conclusion of commercial
ventures, such as the Memorandum of Agreement signed at the Tenth
Meeting of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission between Conoco and Lukoil
to develop the northern areas oilfields.
The Department also operates several programs specifically directed
to assisting U.S. companies doing business in Russia. The Business
Information Service for the New Independent States (BISNIS) provides
extensive, client-oriented information, counseling and trade leads to
U.S. companies on the rapidly changing Russian market. BISNIS responds
to over 200,000 inquiries a year from U.S. companies of all sizes and
to date has assisted U.S. companies in generating over $1.7 billion in
trade and investment transactions. Nine ABC's located across Russia
offer business services for U.S. companies new to the market and helps
them locate Russian partners. Since inception, the ABC network has
successfully served over 2,700 U.S. companies throughout the New
Independent States, resulting in over $206 million of reported U.S.
export sales. The Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT)
program, which provides training for Russian entrepreneurs, also helps
American companies develop business relationships in Russia. Over 900
U.S. companies have trained more than 1,200 NIS executives, reaping
over $100 million in export revenues from SABIT-sponsored
relationships. The Department's U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service
covers Russia from end to end with posts in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and
Vladivostok, and is among the largest of our US&FCS posts in the world.
These efforts have helped increase U.S.-Russian trade turnover by
50 percent, from $3.2 billion in 1993, to $7.5 billion in 1997.
cooperation with business organizations
Question. How best can the Department of Commerce work
cooperatively with private organizations such as the Russian-American
Chamber of Commerce to create opportunities for American companies in
Russia and other countries around the world?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has excellent working
relationships with U.S. business umbrella organizations such as the
Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, the U.S.-Russia Business Council,
the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, and many industry sector
trade associations. The Department works closely with these
organizations to improve the business environment for American
companies in Russia and increase bilateral trade and investment.
The Department views business input as central to the work of both
the Business Development Committee and the Gore-Chernomyrdin
Commission. U.S. business concerns, such as tax reform and reform in
the commercial energy sector, drive the agenda of the Business
Development Committee (BDC) and the work of the U.S. Ombudsman. At the
last meeting of the Commission, March 10-12, representatives of the
U.S.-Russia Business Council, the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia, and the Petroleum Advisory Forum made presentations to the BDC
meeting chaired by Secretary Daley and Minister Fradkov. The private
sector also participates actively in the work of the BDC's fifteen
working groups and sectoral subgroups, as well as in the BDC's Joint
Commercial Tax Dialogue, the U.S.-Russia Working Group on Taxation, the
Joint Standards Dialogue, and the newly-established Joint Commercial
Customs Dialogue.
The Department continually looks for opportunities to cooperate
with private sector organizations in carrying out trade promotion
activities such as conferences, roundtables, and trade missions.
Departmental officials, for example, often participate as speakers at
conferences organized by the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. The
Seattle-based Foundation for Russian-American Economic Cooperation
plays a vital role in the successes of our U.S. West Coast-Russian Far
East Working Group. The Department's Business Information Service for
the New Independent States (BISNIS) co-sponsored with the National
Association of Home Builders' Building Technology Information Center
three highly successful teleconferences between Moscow and Washington
on the Russian construction market. We believe such public-private
sector partnerships strengthen the effectiveness of American trade
promotion in Russia and elsewhere around the world.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
economic development administration [eda] trade adjustment
Question. In EDA you are requesting a new $49 million initiative to
assist ``Trade Impacted Communities.'' I should point out that as of
last year the U.S. Labor Department had certified that well over
100,000 workers have lost their jobs directly as a result of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Outside estimates are closer to
600,000. So Mr. Secretary, how many jobs is this EDA program going to
address through this program? Aren't you going to require a whole lot
more money just to address NAFTA? Is this part of a Presidential effort
to remarket Fast Track for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT)?
Answer. Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Workers,
the Department of Labor provides direct assistance to individuals who
have lost their jobs as a result of trade opening agreements such as
GATT, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NAFTA. The Community and
Economic Adjustment Initiative (CEAI), proposed by the Department of
Commerce in EDA's fiscal year 1999 budget request, will not duplicate
the Department of Labor's program, but instead will complement it by
assisting the communities in which the workers live.
Communities adversely impacted by trade experience structural
economic change at the local level. The impact is similar to the
structural changes that result from defense downsizing, natural
disasters or significant plant closures. The design of CEAI is modeled
on EDA's successful defense, disaster and economic adjustment programs.
Initial funding assistance is offered to an affected community to
develop a local adjustment strategy. This planning process may be
undertaken by an existing governmental or economic development entity
or by a new entity such as the base reuse authorities that were formed
to redevelop closing military facilities. In the case of trade-impacted
communities, the adjustment strategy will serve as the locally-prepared
blueprint for developing or strengthening economic sectors to compete
more effectively within the new trade environment. To implement the
community economic adjustment strategy, EDA can fund technical
assistance projects to evaluate options or provide technical assistance
to businesses, projects for construction of critical public
infrastructure necessary for the development of new and competitive
economic sectors, and revolving loan fund projects to provide capital
to local businesses. EDA proposes approximately $9 million to fund
adjustment strategies and approximately $37 million to fund
implementation projects.
We expect CEAI outcomes to track the outcomes of EDA's other
economic adjustment assistance programs at project maturity. An
evaluation of the effectiveness of EDA's Defense Adjustment Program by
Rutgers University (November 1997) provides a picture of the potential
effectiveness of the CEAI program. The Defense Adjustment study
concluded that Defense construction projects produced 124 jobs per $1
million of EDA funding, while completed Defense Revolving Loan Fund
grants produced 304 jobs per $1 million of EDA funding. An evaluation
of the effectiveness of EDA's Public Works (Construction) Program by
Rutgers University (May 1997) concluded that, for every $1 million of
EDA investment, 327 jobs were created and $10 million in private sector
dollars were leveraged in the community.
census 2000
Question. The Census Bureau's budget is requested to increase by
$480 million to $1.028 billion. That's a lot of money. Could you give
us an update on the dress rehearsal?
Answer. The Dress Rehearsal in General: The Census 2000 Dress
Rehearsal in Columbia, South Carolina; Menominee, Wisconsin; and
Sacramento, California continues on schedule. Printing of the
questionnaires needed for data collection is completed. Starting in
mid-March, our temporary field staffs began delivering these
questionnaires to households in areas of the test sites containing
predominately non-city style addresses. In early April, the U.S. Postal
Service will start delivering questionnaires to households in areas of
the test sites containing predominately city style addresses. In
preparation for receiving questionnaires from these households, we have
installed the data capture system in our Jeffersonville, Indiana
processing facility. On March 1, we initiated our promotion campaign in
all three dress rehearsal sites. Including paid advertising for the
first time, the promotion campaign will continue throughout the initial
data collection period. Finally, we completed the initial phase of our
quality check program (Integrated Coverage Measurement) by creating an
independent list of addresses in selected areas of the test site.
The Dress Rehearsal in South Carolina: As of mid-March,
approximately 400 temporary workers have been hired (including the
address listing work last year) at the Columbia, South Carolina site
which includes the surrounding counties of Chester, Lee, Chesterfield,
Marlboro, Darlington, Newberry, Fairfield, Richland, Kershaw, Union and
Lancaster. The Census Bureau anticipates peak staffing of about 1,300
temporary workers at the end of May. The duration of these jobs will
vary from a few weeks to nine months. In November 1997, we leased
office facilities and opened a Dress Rehearsal Local Census Office in
Columbia which will remain open until July/August 1998.
The Columbia site was selected because it contains living
situations and socioeconomic characteristics that are not found in a
predominantly urban environment. The Columbia site provides our only
opportunity to test procedures for developing the census address list
in an area containing a mixture of house number/street name and rural
route and box number addresses. Since this site has a relatively high
proportion of African Americans, it provides an opportunity to test
procedures for reducing the differentials for this racial group.
Furthermore, the site selected represents the size of typical local
census offices planned for Census 2000, which is necessary to provide
an understanding of the effectiveness of census operations.
Question. Could you give us an update on the oversight board?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill provided $4
million to support Census Monitoring Board operations. The Board is
authorized to use the General Services Administration as the provider
of all its administrative support, which is what most small boards and
commissions elect to do. The Census Bureau will deposit the funds in
the Board's Treasury account for its use. The Bureau will not monitor
expenditures further.
Question. Could you give us an update on the appointment of a new
Director?
Answer. The Administration is in the process of identifying an
individual for appointment as the new Director of the Census Bureau. We
currently have an Acting Director, Mr. James Holmes, who is a career
Bureau employee with 30 years of experience managing data collection
activities.
Question. How much does it look like we are going to have to pay
per hour to get Census takers?
Answer. It is unclear at this time what hourly pay rates will be
necessary to successfully recruit and retain enumerators. The Bureau
has engaged an independent consultant group, WESTAT, to help us examine
this issue. The Interim Report of WESTAT analysis is enclosed.
The Bureau is evaluating the WESTAT interim findings on pay rates
in the Dress Rehearsal sites. Given that the Nation currently has the
lowest unemployment in two decades, the Dress Rehearsal testing of pay
rates in Columbia, South Carolina will be particularly informative in
that unemployment is very low in that area. The Bureau will be in a
better position to determine necessary pay rates when our analysis of
the Dress Rehearsal results is complete.
Question. Is $4.1 billion still a good estimate of what it will
cost to conduct a census that includes statistical sampling? If that is
so, what is your best estimate for what it would cost to conduct a
full-enumeration, traditional census?
Answer. We haven't changed our plan for Census 2000, but we are
conducting ``dual-track'' activities pursuant to the 1998 Commerce,
Justice, State Appropriations compromise. To plan for both a sampling
and a non-sampling census, we are spending an additional $31 million in
fiscal year 1998; and we have asked for an additional $36 million in
fiscal year 1999. The $36 million request for fiscal year 1999 does not
include all the funding that we would have requested if we did not
expect to do sampling in 2000. Furthermore, the Bureau is conducting
the Dress Rehearsal in fiscal year 1998 to validate our plan, including
assumptions affecting cost. If the Dress Rehearsal exposes necessary
changes to the plan, it is very possible that our cost estimates may
increase or decrease.
The cost for a non-sampling census would depend on the accuracy
goal that Congress expects. The estimate provided to Congress last year
was that replicating a 1990 style census would add about $800 million
to the cost. This, however, would only achieve a level of accuracy
equivalent to the 1990 results, estimated at 1.9 percent undercount.
Legislation last year set a target of getting as close to 100 percent
accuracy as possible without sampling. Such a goal, without sampling,
would be far more expensive than an additional $800 million. In fact,
the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that, without sampling,
no amount of money spent on the old methods alone could achieve
satisfactory accuracy. The Bureau, therefore, maintains that sampling
is the best methodology. In response to a request from Representative
Rogers, the Bureau is currently trying to determine the possible cost
of a census that increases accuracy but does not use sampling.
hanbo steel
Question. Approximately one year ago, U.S. manufacturers presented
the Department with requests to pursue a WTO dispute settlement action
with South Korea regarding the $6 billion in government directed loans
to the now bankrupt Hanbo Steel. Please detail what steps the
Department has taken in responding to this request. Does the
Administration have plans to pursue this request? If not, why not?
Answer. Please be assured that I take this matter very seriously. I
wholeheartedly support the strong enforcement of our trade laws and our
rights under the WTO Subsidies Agreement.
Import Administration (``IA''), an agency within the Department of
Commerce, is the administrator of the countervailing duty law and
coordinator of the U.S. Government's subsidies enforcement efforts. IA,
working closely with United States Trade Representative (USTR), has
been reviewing allegations brought to the Department and USTR by
members of the U.S. pipe and tube industry concerning the Korean
Government subsidization of Hanbo Iron & Steel. Staff in both agencies
have reviewed and analyzed the allegations and evidence contained in
the industry's complaint.
In order to develop as much information as possible about the
subsidy practices, in addition to the U.S. industry's complaint, IA
staff have reviewed information contained in the Commerce Subsidies
Library, researched Internet sites, and discussed the issue with other
Commerce offices which routinely collect information on specific
country and industry practices. After this initial research, the U.S.
embassy in Seoul was contacted to discuss our findings and determine
what further information could be provided by embassy personnel.
Last April, after conducting this research and consulting with the
domestic industry, USTR and Commerce forwarded a series of questions to
the Korean Government to seek explanations and clarification of the
Hanbo bankruptcy, the government's role (if any) in extending and
facilitating the extension of credit to Hanbo on commercially
inconsistent terms, the Government's role (if any) in assisting the
construction, development and operation of Hanbo's new production
facility on Asan Bay, and the extent and nature of government
assistance to banks, creditors and suppliers whose financial status had
been placed in jeopardy as a result of the Hanbo bankruptcy. At the end
of April, the United States raised these same concerns at the regular,
spring meeting of the Subsidies Committee. A few months later, the
Korean Government provided a ``position paper'' which attempted to
refute generally the allegations cited in the U.S. steel industry's
complaint, but did not directly address the more detailed questions
submitted by the United States in April. Subsequently, we drafted
supplementary questions, and forwarded those and the unanswered
questions from April back to Seoul in mid-September. As a further sign
of our seriousness, we included a statement of the Administration's
concerns regarding the potentially extensive subsidization of Korea's
steel industry in the ``Watch NIST'' of USTR's Super 301 announcement,
issued on October 1. The Korean Government provided somewhat more
detailed answers to all of our questions on November 4, 1997.
The Administration is studying the Korean Government's responses,
and we are monitoring the financial and other reforms to which Korea
has committed in the context of its IMF rescue plan. These points were
also covered during my recent trip to Korea. At the same time, we have
been working closely with the domestic industry to gather additional
information on potential subsidies and to document the extent to which
any such subsidies may have caused adverse effects to U.S. interests.
We expect to finalize our assessment of this information in the near
future to determine what future steps may be appropriate.
subsidization of hanbo steel
Question. During your trip to Korea did you request that President
Kim cease all subsidization of Hanbo and divest itself of its
controlling interest in POSCO rather than merely turning over Hanbo
assets to POSCO? If so, what was his response?
Answer. First let me say that helping Korea achieve a rapid, strong
and lasting economic recovery is in the best interest of American
business. Korea is our fifth largest export market, and actually in
recent years has been one of the few countries with whom we have had a
trade surplus. Korea's economic problems will put our trade into
deficit this year, but we need to press for more openness in Korea so
that when their economic health returns, our exports will shoot back
up.
Accordingly, my visit in Korea centered on the following four
themes: (1) to show strong U.S. support for Korea during the economic
crisis; (2) to stress the need for continued economic reform and market
openness; (3) to show the continued commercial engagement of the U.S.
in Korea's recovery; and (4) to learn of the problems and challenges
faced by American exporters during the crises. I emphasized that
exporting their way out of their problems was not acceptable, and also
stressed that they needed to remove practices that had been restricting
our exports.
These are the points I stress in all of my meetings, particularly
with the then President-elect Kim Dae Jung and his economic advisors.
Regarding Hanbo, I know that U.S. industry is concerned that the
Korean Government may be providing subsidies inconsistent with Korea's
international obligations. Import Administration has been watching the
situation closely. All information provided by the Korean Government
and U.S. industry will be reviewed to determine what further steps
should be taken.
hanbo steel--public financial statement
Question. I understand that Hanbo Steel, a publicly-traded company
has not issued a public financial statement since June 1996. Since part
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) relief package requires
transparent financial reporting, when do you think we can expect to see
Hanbo's financial statements?
Answer. We have raised the issue of Hanbo's lack of financial
disclosure with the Korean Government. Such financial disclosure is
required under not only internationally accepted accounting practices
but also Korean law.
The conditions of the IMF rescue package calling for corporate
disclosure and greater transparency of corporate balance sheets will
put additional pressure on Hanbo to issue current reports. We are
committed to seeking a full disclosure of Hanbo's current financial
situation and will continue to press the Korean Government on this
issue.
hanbo steel bankruptcy
Question. It is my understanding that Hanbo Steel filed for
bankruptcy in January 1997 but has not shuttered any capacity. In fact,
the February 16, 1998 Business Week stated that even Korean steel
manufacturers are concerned with Hanbo's actions. Do you expect this
bankrupt steel manufacturer will shutter any of its steel capacity? If
so, when might we expect such an action?
Answer. We will seek to ensure that any restructuring of the
company will be handled in an open and transparent manner, and in
accordance with commercial considerations. Recent press reports
indicate that Hanbo Steel intends to sell the most controversial part
of its Tanjin facility, the Corel plant, with bidding open to both
foreign and domestic purchasers.
We will continue to carefully follow all aspects of the Hanbo Steel
bankruptcy proceedings and to press the Korean government for a full
accounting of the activities of the company.
Question. Severe devaluations in currencies are traditionally
followed by internal inflation in the country whose currency has been
devalued. Do you expect to see an increase in inflation in Korea? If
that inflation did not occur in a particular industry or sector, would
it be appropriate to conclude the government was artificially
restraining price increases? Would such government actions be
appropriate under the IMF agreement?
Answer. A number of factors may affect whether the inflationary
pressure on a particular industry mirrors that of the economy as a
whole. These can include the capital intensivity of the industry, the
source of its external financing, and its reliance on domestically
produced versus imported inputs. Industries that are capital-intensive,
that borrow heavily and that consume imported inputs will tend to
experience higher inflation than those that do not.
The IMF rescue package contains several conditions relating to
monetary policy that are designed to lessen the inflationary impact of
the recent won devaluation. For example, the package calls for an
immediate tightening of monetary policy to restore calm to the markets
and limits money growth in 1998 to a rate consistent with containing
inflation at five percent or less.
It would require extensive analysis to determine whether an
industry-specific rate of inflation lower than the national average was
the result of market force or government interference in the
marketplace. If we found that the Korean government was taking actions
to ease the effects of inflation on a specific industry or sector, we
would evaluate whether such action violated Korea's WTO or IMF
commitments.
nonmarket economy methodology
Question. Can you assure me that the Administration and the
Department are fully committed to preserving the nonmarket economy
methodology of the U.S. antidumping law in the WTO accessions of Russia
and China?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has been working closely with
USTR on China's and Russia's accession to the WTO. We are aggressively
seeking a provision in China's protocol of accession that will confirm
that WTO members can continue to use alternative methodologies, such as
our surrogate country methodology with respect to nonmarket economies.
Negotiations with Russia are at a very preliminary stage, but we are
committed to preserving our ability to apply our nonmarket economy
methodology as long as the statutory criteria require it.
import surges
Question. What policies will the Department be implementing to help
U.S. workers and manufacturers deal with import surges from Asia,
particularly those that are beyond the reach of the dumping law.
Answer. As you know, foreign producers engage in dumping when they
set their U.S. prices below the price they charge at home for the same
goods or below what it costs to produce the goods. Home market prices
and costs can be affected by a number of factors, one of which is the
exchange rate. The recent devaluation of Asian currencies may make it
possible for Asian exporters to lower their U.S. prices, raising
concerns about import surges, without raising their dumping margins. At
the same time, as the cost of capital and imported inputs rises, home
market prices and costs are likely to rise, making it possible that
dumping margins will increase.
Beyond Commerce's continued vigilant enforcement of the antidumping
and countervailing duty law, we are committed to closely monitoring the
economic policies of Asian countries to ensure that the IMF conditions
are met and to ensure that they are not seeking to unfairly increase
exports by instituting export or production-related subsidy programs.
Specifically, if the monitoring indicates that the governments are not
living up to their international commitments, Commerce would evaluate
whether such actions violate provisions of the IMF conditions, U.S. law
or the WTO Subsidies Agreement and, as such, are actionable.
international trade administration reorganization
Question. I keep hearing about a pending reorganization of the
International Trade Administration (ITA). Where does this effort stand?
Answer. I have reached no final conclusions, but we have considered
various models of organization for ITA for some time. We have concluded
that, if we proceed, it would be best to minimally impact the present
arrangements and to only do those things that would appreciably impact
our operation. For example, we hope to sharpen the focus of the mission
of each sub-organization to better improve accountability. At present,
too many of our functions are dispersed across several organizations.
Question. Could you describe the options you are looking at?
Answer. We hope to group like functions in order to streamline our
operations at headquarters. This would have the effect of saving
resources which would allow us to achieve our main goal of increasing
field staffing. We hope to redirect modest staffing increases to both
the domestic and foreign field.
I anticipate that we will reach our final conclusions in the near
future and consult fully with Congress prior to engaging in any action.
impact on u.s. exports of asian financial crisis
Question. Speaking of your trade promotion programs, do you have an
assessment of how badly the Asian economic ``meltdown'' will impact
U.S. exports?
Answer. In 1997 U.S. export performance was already somewhat
weakened by declining sales to Asia. Our overall merchandise trade
deficit reached $199 billion last year, with U.S. sales to Japan
dropping by 2.9 percent, to Korea by 5.6 percent. With export orders to
Asia still weakening, our total trade deficit will undoubtedly grow
this year. Sectors likely to be most heavily impacted include
semiconductor equipment, chemicals, and agricultural products.
During this period of economic downturn, we are seeking to reduce
barriers to U.S. exports and lay the groundwork for more hospitable
treatment of our products. During my recent trip to the region, I
emphasized to the countries I visited the importance of continuing to
pursue market-opening measures. In addition, the IMF stabilization
packages contain critical trade-related commitments of importance to
U.S. businesses in these markets, and we are actively working to assure
the timely and complete implementation of these reform measures.
Our International Trade Administration bureau has announced a four
point plan to help U.S. companies overcome business problems they are
facing in Asia due to the financial crisis. The four points are:
--Launching a comprehensive effort to develop analysis and market
information to help companies keep abreast of the rapidly
changing Asian landscape.
--Arranging high-level visits to key Asian countries for fact-finding
and to ensure that markets remain open to U.S. firms.
--Holding a series of seminars in cities around the country
(locations and dates to be announced soon) that will focus on
issues critical to companies by providing updated economic
information, lessons learned by other companies which continue
to be successful in Asia, and advice on how exporters can
overcome the current difficulties and continue their Asian
business operations.
--Establishing a special Asian information program within the
Department's Trade Information Center (tel. 1-800-USA-TRADE),
that will make all Commerce Department information on Asia
easily accessible to U.S. exporters.
It is important to recognize that in the longer term the Asian
financial crisis will actually create opportunities for future U.S.
export growth. While they are currently experiencing the severe shocks
of bankruptcy, inflation, unemployment, and currency devaluation, these
countries, once they begin to recover, will again generate a heavy
demand for U.S. products. For that reason we have been taking a number
of steps, including holding seminars and disseminating market analysis
and information, to provide advice to U.S. companies on dealing with
the current crisis and to make them aware of business opportunities as
they arise.
ita civil servants advancing a political agenda
Question. Finally, I have been a major supporter of ITA. We need to
compete with the Japanese, French and Germans--and ITA are our soldiers
in promoting U.S. goods and services overseas. But, I have developed
some concerns lately. Last year there were reports that domestic U.S. &
Foreign Commercial Service officers were being told to ``promote Fast-
Track'' in their dealings with state and local officials and the
private sector. Now the Journal of Commerce reports that ITA officials
are going into high schools to promote ``free trade.''
Mr. Secretary, if Clinton Administration political officials want
to promote these politically controversial, policy initiatives--I may
agree with you, but clearly it is your right. However, do you think it
is appropriate for career ITA civil servants to be advancing this
political agenda? Isn't this stealing time away from their job which is
to promote or protect U.S. business?
Answer. The International Trade Administration has one goal, and
one goal only: to assist the American business community as our
nation's manufacturers enter into overseas markets and expand their
market presence. This occurs each time a businessperson calls the Trade
Information Center for immediate, short-term business counseling; when
a client enters an Export Assistance Center to explore international
marketing strategies; when a company needs an explanation and
clarification of an existing United States trade agreement; and when
ITA officials ensure that foreign products are being sold at their fair
value in U.S. markets. These examples, and countless others, are the
day-to-day activities of ITA that have a positive impact on the
American business community.
American products are reaching international markets at levels that
were unthinkable ten years ago. These U.S. exports have significantly
contributed to the current economic growth and will continue to provide
strength to the American economy for years to come provided that
American manufacturers have unencumbered access to international
markets. Study after study has demonstrated that American products are
competitive internationally only when the playing field is level. If
certain countries have excessive tariffs on American products, those
markets become non-viable. One need only look to Canada and Mexico
where our exports have increased tremendously over the past five years
to see the benefits of having free and open trading partners.
It is true that the Department of Commerce and ITA, under my
leadership supported the Fast Track Initiative last year. Let me assure
you, however, that ITA civil servants were not participating in
partisan, political activities. Rather, it was the Department's
objective to explain the benefit of free trade to our clients, the
American exporting community. By educating our clients about the
benefits of free trade we are able to ``promote and protect U.S.
business,'' and help U.S. business recognize and deal with unfair trade
practices.
tourism
Question. Travel and tourism ranks as the first, second, or third
largest employer in 32 states and the District of Columbia. In my state
of South Carolina, tourism is a $6.9 billion industry and 113,000 South
Carolinians' jobs depend on tourism.
Nationally, the tourism industry produced a record $26 billion
trade surplus in 1996 (the last year for which statistics are
available), attracting more than $90 billion in foreign revenue.
Realizing the significance of this industry, the private sector and the
Federal Government committed to develop a cooperative approach to
tourism economic development at the 1995 White House Conference on
Travel and Tourism (WHCTT). Conference delegates made ten priority
recommendations to improve our national tourism strategy. All of these
recommendations are due to be implemented by December of this year.
Question. What progress has been made on implementing the White
House Conference's recommendations?
Answer. The Federal Government has played a role in implementing or
helping to implement many of the White House Conference's top ten
priorities. Members of the Tourism Policy Council (TPC), which I chair,
have worked diligently to complete their contributions to these
priorities set by the delegates to the White House Conference. The TPC
is the Federal Government's interagency coordinating committee on
policies and programs that affect tourism development in this country.
Question. What work is left to be done?
Answer. The top two priorities of the WHCTT called for the
structure and creation of an organization that would work to promote
the United States abroad. Congress passed, and President Clinton
signed, the U.S. National Tourism Organization Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C.
Sec. 2141 et seq.), which established the U.S. National Tourism
Organization (USNTO). The USNTO is privately managed and its activities
are driven by the private sector. The organization's primary goal is to
work for an increase in the U.S. share of the global tourism market.
The Act, however, did not fund the USNTO and discussions on the funding
issue are on-going within the industry and between the USNTO and
members of Congress. As part of the cooperative approach set forth in
the Act, the head of the USNTO sits on the TPC.
The third top priority was for the Congress to fund current and
future transportation needs adequately through the use of the
transportation trust funds. Congress is currently considering
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA). The Administration supports increased funding for
transportation programs within the limits established by the balanced
budget agreement.
The WHCTT's fourth top priority was that Congress should make the
Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP) permanent. There are two bills
currently in Congress that would extend the VWPP for up to three years.
The Administration supports a multi-year extension, which would
continue to ease entry for low risk travelers.
The fifth priority called for Federal agencies to leverage
technology to facilitate the process of travelers entering the United
States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has expanded
its use of ``alternative inspection systems'' that expedite entry into
the United States without sacrificing border security. The INS uses
computerized databases, scanning and biometric recognition, video
telecommunication technologies (including INSPASS), remote video
inspection, and dedicated commute lanes. The U.S. Customs Service and
the INS have expanded their use of electronically transmitted passenger
information to expedite the clearance of international passengers. As
of August 1997, over 56 percent of required data checks are completed
prior to passenger arrival through their Advanced Passenger Information
System.
The sixth priority called for the Department of Commerce to account
accurately for the expansion of travel and tourism-related businesses
in the new North American Standard Industry Classification System
(NAICS) as a revision to the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC). OMB coordinated the creation of the NAICS; the Department of
Commerce served on the revision committee. Through the participation of
Tourism Industries of the Department of Commerce and representation of
industry views to the committee, the NAICS does more accurately reflect
travel and tourism related business activity.
However, the more accurate tool for accounting for the economic
activity of travel and tourism businesses is the Travel and Tourism
Satellite Account (TTSA), which will show a complete picture of the
industry's value to the national economy and was a recommendation also
of the WHCTT. The Department of Commerce has begun development of the
TTSA, but further funding is essential in order to complete it.
President Clinton, in his fiscal year 1999 budget submission, has
requested an additional $1 million for improving statistical research
in international travel. Half of that amount, $500,000, would be
devoted to completing the TTSA. The other $500,000 would be used to
expand the respondent base for the In-Flight Survey of International
Air Travelers, so that our data is more accurate.
The seventh priority was to establish a nation-wide toll-free
multilingual visitor emergency assistance hotline. Although the Federal
Government is not involved in the development, installation, or
maintenance of the system, specific TPC members have supported the
concept of the toll-free system by recognizing its role in encouraging
international visitation. The TPC has provided a letter to the private
sector task force working on the development of the toll-free number
which supports the concept of the hotline and provides guidelines for
distributing information about the hotline along with the distribution
of INS' and Customs' forms which international passengers receive
before entry into the United States. The hotline is not yet
operational, but we understand the private sector has been working on
its development.
The eighth priority called for the development, by a consortium, of
a strategic plan for curriculum development. To our knowledge, the
private sector has not yet convened the consortium on which the
Departments of Labor and Education would serve under this priority.
The ninth priority called for regional natural and cultural tourism
summits. The Department of the Interior and the National Endowment for
the Arts have participated in many such summits around the country,
such as in Nevada, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Indiana,
California, and Hawaii. A Memorandum of Understanding among nine
Federal agencies established a cooperative framework that coordinates
and supports this priority.
The Administration has also been involved in implementing many of
the other WHCTT recommendations, such as expanding the number of ``open
skies'' aviation agreements and developing an electronic clearinghouse
of data and information on travel and tourism available within the
Federal Government. A report by the TPC on the Administration's
activities is currently being cleared and will be submitted to
Congress.
tourism data collection
Question. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget includes a $1
million increase to $3 million in the International Trade
Administration's Trade Development budget to assist in implementing
recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Travel and
Tourism and to provide for the collection of comprehensive travel and
tourism statistics. This is the good news. However, I understand that
in fiscal year 1998 there is a shortfall in the ITA budget, and tourism
statistics are on the line.
The tourism industry relies on ITA data to market services from
airline travel to destination marketing to retail advertising. How are
you working to ensure data collection is not being compromised in
fiscal year 1998, and how will this extra $1 million improve statistics
collection, analysis, and dissemination in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The President's request for an additional $1 million for
travel research would be evenly divided between the development of a
permanent set of accounts for the Nation's Travel and Tourism Satellite
Account (TTSA) and the expansion of the respondent base for the In-
Flight Survey of International Air Travelers, the primary research
program directly administered by Tourism Industries (TI) at the
Department of Commerce.
In addition to the INS I-94 database, the In-Flight Survey of
International Air Travelers is the integral resource for BEA in
configuring the national travel account for the balance of trade and
the generation of the Gross Domestic Product. It also represents the
only source of information for the travel and tourism industry, which
includes states, cities and private sector suppliers. The information
generated ranges from psychographic and demographic profiles, to
economic impact analysis to trends and forecasts of international
travel to and from the U.S.
The respondent base for the In-Flight Survey only represents 0.2
percent of the overseas and Mexican air travelers to the U.S. Though
this is statistically acceptable for national estimated visitation
numbers and trends, it restricts in-depth subgroup analysis for the
majority of states and cities, which comprise the majority of users of
our data. They, with the private sector, have taken over USTTA's
responsibility of marketing the United States with the expectation, as
set forth in the U.S. National Tourism Act, that the Federal Government
would provide the statistical tools to allow them to efficiently plan
promotional programs and measure the effectiveness of their efforts.
International spending by states alone on tourism promotion is close to
$20 million. An expanded respondent base will assist the Department to
fulfill its mandate of providing comprehensive data for all levels of
users, ensuring more export assistance for a broader base of small to
medium-sized businesses and second-tier destinations. Increasing the
base of this survey program also provides more accurate trade estimates
by the BEA and the Tourism Industry (TI), thus, giving more credibility
to economic impact tourism data.
In fiscal year 1998, TI will continue its responsibility for the
collection, analysis and dissemination of tourism statistics for the
industry. The respondent base for the In-Flight Survey of International
Air Travelers will drop from 95,000 respondents in 1997 to 69,000. This
will create difficulties in fully meeting the needs of states and
cities for in-depth analysis of overseas visitors to their destination.
One important program that will continue in 1998 is the building of
a TTSA. The TTSA will fulfill the responsibility to provide improved
economic accountability on the impact of travel and tourism at the
National, state and local levels as well as fulfill the recommendation
from the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism and the 1998
Strategic Plan for the Tourism Policy Council. This account will serve
as the source for the industry's dialogues with policy makers and
investors for this critical export by having a credible and
standardized economic tool, a satellite account. A prototype of this
account is being developed in fiscal year 1998 through a joint
partnership with the BEA. In order to continue in fiscal year 1999 to
accomplish a permanent set of accounts associated with our national
system of accounts, it is estimated that computer development,
expertise and additional information collection costs will be $500,000.
tourism marketing
Question. The January 1998 report of the U.S. National Tourism
Organization pointed out that the U.S. Government's financial
contribution to promoting tourism falls well below that of our
competitors. Even in 1993, more than 25 other national governments
spent more promoting tourism, including tiny Jamaica, Bermuda, and
Switzerland. Since the disbanding of the United States Travel and
Tourism Administration, our tourism promotion budget has become
practically non-existent. While the private sector spends $1 billion
marketing tourism products abroad, I understand that the Visit USA
program, the U.S. National Tourism Organization's program designed to
market the United States as a destination, is still getting off the
ground.
How can the United States hold its place as the number two
international tourism destination (behind France) without a national
tourism marketing effort?
Answer. The U.S. National Tourism Organization Act sets forth the
spirit of a public/private partnership for the promotion of the United
States as an international travel destination. Over $1 billion in 1996
has already been invested by states, cities, and the private industry
sectors to promote U.S. tourism products. The Federal Government has
invested slightly over $2 million to fulfill its role in providing
marketing and economic research statistics for the industry's decision
making for international tourism investment. It is through the Federal
investment in research that the $1 billion plus marketing investment
can be targeted to provide the greatest return on investment to ensure
the expansion of this export for the creation and support of U.S. jobs
and economic development.
Question. What is the Department of Commerce doing to market U.S.
tourism abroad? What will the proposed $1 million in fiscal year 1999
allow us to achieve?
Answer. The proposed additional $1 million is directed at the
improvement in the reliability and usefulness of the research and
economic statistics vital to the market selection and policy decision
making of the industry, states and cities. One-half of the proposed
funding, $500,000, would be used to enhance the respondent base of the
In-Flight Survey of International Air Travelers which serves as the
critical tool for marketing decisions and investments. The expansion
would enable more in-depth analysis for states and cities to understand
market trends for refining their targeted international marketing
efforts and to measure their return on investment. The other half of
the funding, $500,000, would be used to finalize the development of the
TTSA for accurately measuring the impact of the industry on the U.S.
economy and job creation. This is important because at present there
are challenges in providing credible data for clearly defining the
enormous impact that travel and tourism, both domestic and
international, has on the U.S. economy. These are natural growing pains
as a manufacturing economy makes room for a growing services sector.
For example, growing from a $26 billion industry in 1986 to a $90
billion industry in 1996, travel and tourism's export contributions to
the U.S. economy have grown 346 percent in the last decade. Travel and
tourism represents the largest services export and the third largest
export overall. To ensure that this impact and more is considered for
policy makers and the accountability of a shifting economy, the
investment in the permanent TTSA will: provide a national account to
examine tourism as an economic phenomenon; offer national policy makers
insights into tourism and the role it performs in their economies; and
profile the size of tourism capital investment, and the means to
analyze its link with tourism supply and job creation in local
economies.
national oceanic and atmospheric administration [noaa] corps
Question. Secretary Daley, the Vice President's National
Performance Review recommended abolishing the NOAA Corps in 1994. The
Corps is the seventh uniformed service in the United States and these
officers fly our hurricane and El Nino research aircraft and drive
NOAA's ships. This proposal to dismantle the Corps seemed to be ill-
conceived and by the Department's own analysis--it would not save
anything.
For the past several years, Congress has rejected this proposal.
Nevertheless, the Department is not allowing any new Corps officers to
be brought into the service. While we are refusing to dismantle the
Corps, the Administration is ``de facto'' dismantling the Corps. The
service is aging and morale is plummeting.
Chairman Stevens and I have written to you urging the Department to
allow the accession of new Corps officers. We haven't received a
response. Are you willing to allow the accession of new Corps officers?
Answer. NOAA has not recruited new officers for several years.
Initially, the Corps' ranks were planned to be reduced by nearly 30
percent between fiscal year 1994 and now as part of an overall agency
streamlining effort. This personnel reduction reflects the downsizing
of NOAA's fleet--from 22 ships in 1989 to 15 vessels today. NOAA
management decided not to recruit new officers initially because of the
streamlining plan and continued the hiring freeze because it was
consistent with the proposed disestablishment of the Corps.
While Congress considers the future of NOAA's uniformed service, I
have asked NOAA management to evaluate further its personnel
requirements and priorities for functions currently performed by the
NOAA Corps. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the minimum
number of staff required to operate the current fleet of NOAA's ships
and aircraft and perform related functions essential to NOAA's mission
such as hydrographic field surveys.
The evaluation will allow NOAA to better determine its total
personnel requirements for these functions and deploy the current
complement of Corps officers to the highest priority positions. If this
evaluation indicates a need for additional personnel in order to meet
NOAA requirements, we will take steps to recruit the number of people
required. We will be happy to brief you and other members once we have
finished this analysis.
noaa fleet
Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate you for taking the
action to continue the NOAA fleet. As I understand it, in the
``outyears'' or in long term budget projections, the Commerce budget
includes $159 million for fisheries vessels. It is about time that we
begin investing in infrastructure for the agency. As you know, this
subcommittee fought to allow you to plan to modernize the fleet. The
House wanted to bar you from even designing new vessels.
Most NOAA vessels are nearing 30 years of age. It seems to me that
NOAA is not going to be able to continue surveys of marine fisheries,
marine mammals and endangered species if we don't make this investment
in infrastructure. Do you agree?
Answer. The Department agrees that replacement fisheries research
capability will be required in the very near future if NOAA is to meet
its marine fisheries, marine mammal, endangered species and habitat
responsibilities. There are several recent developments concerning this
subject. The National Research Council's 1997 review of NOAA's stock
assessment process confirmed this by stating ``diminishing the quality
of fishery-independent data by failing to modernize NOAA fishery
research vessels could imperil existing and future data sets.'' A 1996
NOAA contract study conducted by naval architects and a 1997 study by
the Military Sealift Command at NOAA's behest have concluded that there
are no existing vessels available based on NOAA criteria in the private
sector or the university community that could meet NOAA's fisheries
research requirements. However, a 1998 feasibility study for NOAA led
by the Maritime Administration has confirmed that NOAA's vessel
requirements can be feasibly met. Recently, NOAA asked Rear Admiral
Craig Dorman, USN (Ret.) to review NOAA's fisheries research vessel
requirements to ensure that only the essential needs for new vessels
are being specified. This review and a current request to ship builders
for cost information will assist NOAA in updating outyear budget
estimates.
NOAA is using the fiscal year 1998 money appropriated by Congress
to minimize the risk of getting a vessel that does not meet our needs.
The work includes developing specifications for the hull form and
propeller that will ensure quietness and the necessary speed and
pulling power, specifying the general arrangement of laboratories,
sampling, propulsion, electrical equipment, and developing the
solicitation materials.
Question. Your testimony indicates that you might enter into long-
term leases instead of building new NOAA vessels. Is there any analysis
that this approach makes economic sense?
Answer. NOAA has revised its economic model for Fisheries Research
Vessels acquisitions, taking into account current and likely interest
and taxation rates. Using output from this model and other data, NOAA
will determine the most cost effective method of gathering fisheries
data, whether it be via NOAA-owned and operated ships, leases, charters
or a combination of these methods. The Department will use this
information as it formulates future budget requests, ensuring that the
most efficient method of gathering fisheries data will be employed.
Vessels which can support both trawling and environmental data
collection will likely have no other use without a refitting, so
leasing terms in instances where vessels have specific missions would
have to be long enough to amortize the cost of the vessel. As such,
legislation would have to be enacted to allow for leases of ten years
or more.
awips again
Question. Let me ask one last NOAA question, the National Weather
Service's AWIPS program forecasting and communications system has been
plagued with development, cost, and schedule problems since we started
in 1992. It seems to me that in the last year we have made a tremendous
amount of progress, but there are new cost containment issues in
software development and deployment costs. What are the options you are
considering? If you certify and deploy a system at the $550 million
cost cap, will it be sufficiently capable? If you deploy the system
now, can we expect the National Weather Service to upgrade the system
with planned product improvement?
Answer. The program plan we are proposing results in the most cost-
effective outcome for achieving required capabilities, while complying
with legislation. The National Weather Service (NWS) will deliver AWIPS
to all planned locations with sufficient capability to replace primary
existing systems within the $550 million cap (Build 4). Build 4
includes initial Interactive Forecast Preparation to support public and
aviation forecasts and to automate NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts,
hydrologic prediction system for river basins, some service backup and
site system monitoring, partial NEXRAD workstation functionality, and
initial integration of local data acquisition and dissemination
systems. Significant field staffing reductions (106 positions) are
achievable and sustainable with these capabilities. Under this plan,
deployment would be accelerated so that all planned sites would be
installed by June 1999 with complete Build 4 capability.
We will have an independent assessment conducted of proposed
requirements beyond software Build 4.2, to ensure that any further
development is cost effective and/or operationally required to perform
the mission of the NWS. This we will do under planned product
improvement/systems evolution. This independent assessment will be
completed by August 31, 1998.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. With that, the subcommittee stands in recess
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. when we will have testimony from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Small
Business Administration.
[Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., Wednesday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
March 5.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, and Hollings.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
STATEMENT OF D. JAMES BAKER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS
AND ATMOSPHERE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
TERRY D. GARCIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
ANDREW H. MOXAM, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. Will the Subcommittee on Commerce, State,
and Justice convene? We are going to hear from NOAA on their
thoughts about their budget. Do you have any opening statement?
Senator Hollings. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Do you have any opening statement Senator
Domenici?
Senator Domenici. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. So we will turn to you. Give us your ideas.
Dr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make this brief.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's
1999 budget request.
I am accompanied by Terry Garcia, who is our Deputy
Administrator, Bill Mehuron, our Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
and Andy Moxam, who is our Acting Chief Financial Officer.
Let me state up front that it is simply because of
investments that have been supported by this subcommittee that
NOAA has become a leader in weather and climate research and
forecasts, environmental monitoring and research, ocean
management, fisheries management, and sustainable use of the
coast.
We think we have a good budget and it represents an
appropriate balance among environmental assessment, prediction,
and stewardship needs of the Nation. And I think the best
example of what we have done recently comes from the value of
the forecasts of the 1997, 1998 El Nino, which really worked
very well.
We continue to see El Nino effects. We expect to see them
through March and April, and then in May and June we expect
that we will go back to normal conditions.
The El Nino reminds us of the importance of the ocean to
the weather and climate system. In recognition of this
importance, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be the year
of the ocean. NOAA has planned a year long series of events to
remind us of the value of oceans in our daily lives, and is
leading the Federal interagency effort to review the status of
ocean-related problems.
Legislation has been introduced in Congress by Senator
Hollings that highlights the importance of the ocean and sets
up a commission to review future oceans policy. We strongly
support that congressional action, and I would like to thank
Senator Hollings for his interest and his commitment to these
important issues.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
Year of the ocean
Dr. Baker. The year of the ocean presents NOAA with a
chance to educate more Americans than ever before on the
tremendous importance and fragility of our Nation's oceans,
coastal and Great Lakes resources, and to highlight the role
that NOAA plays in the Federal Government.
Other ocean issues have been in the news this year,
highlighting the contributions that NOAA makes. For example,
the biological consequences of polluted runoff is increasingly
seen in many coastal areas. We have seen the effects through
last year's outbreak of pfiesteria, in harmful algal blooms,
red tides, brown tides, hypoxia, and dead zones in the Gulf of
Mexico--all of which have significant economic consequences.
Because of the support of this committee to this important
topic, NOAA is now playing a key role in the interagency effort
to assist the State and coastal communities in assessing,
monitoring, and responding to harmful algal bloom outbreaks.
Another important success is NOAA's pioneering use of the
flexibility in the Endangered Species Act to work cooperatively
with States--with Oregon and Maine--to develop new ways to
develop conservation plans for salmon that avoid Federal
listing of the species.
We will continue to work with the States to find innovative
approaches for carrying out our trustee responsibilities.
Overview
Our total 1999 request is $2.117 billion in new budget
authority. It is a net increase of $123.5 million over the 1998
enacted level. It allows us to perform an essential role in a
number of interagency and Presidential initiatives, including
the natural disaster reduction initiative, the President's
clean water initiative, the south Florida ecosystem restoration
initiative, and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Significant changes in our 1999 budget include $33.6
million to implement statutory requirements to restore
America's fisheries, protect marine species that are faced with
extinction, and preserve habitat important to living marine
resources.
We have not requested new funds for oceanographic vessels
in fiscal year 1999, but we do have an agreement with the
Office of Management and Budget for four new fishery vessels,
the first of which would start in the year 2000. And we have
some planning money in our budget for that beginning activity.
That is a major step for us, to convince the Office of
Management and Budget that we should move ahead on fishery--I
should say vessel replacement for NOAA, not just fishery
vessel.
We have $22 million for the clean water initiative, which
will help provide research and management to address polluted
runoff, ranging from pfiesteria to harmful algal blooms, and
general issues of pollution, the nonpoint source pollution
issue which is a major source of pollution in coastal waters
today. And we have $5 million for the administration's south
Florida ecosystem initiative.
We will also continue to chart the Nation's coastal waters,
including the continued reduction of the critical backlog for
hydrographic surveys, in providing precise positioning
information throughout the GPS system to mariners.
We have $55 million as our part of the interagency natural
disaster reduction initiative, pulling together the NOAA
activities to provide a better job of getting weather warnings
and forecasts out to the public.
The remainder of our budget supports advanced hydrologic
predictions, improved regional scale weather prediction,
replacement of the obsolete radiosonde upper air monitoring
network, some new research relating to ozone and air
particulate standards that EPA can use, as well as work on
coastal hazards, risk atlases for coastal areas, and research
into harmful algal blooms.
For NOAA's environmental satellites, our 1999 funding will
insure that our GOES and our polar orbiting satellite programs
will be continued. We have an increase of $153 million from the
enacted level for acquisition of our GOES N-Q spacecraft. The
competition in that program has led us to a savings of close to
$500 million over our original estimates.
We have an additional $65 million required to meet NOAA's
commitment to share development costs with the Department of
Defense for our national polar orbiting operational satellite
system, an increase of about $30 million over last year. But
this is where we have saved a lot of money by pulling together
both the defense and the civil programs into a single program.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to note that more than
in most years we have seen the dramatic impact of weather and
climate changes on the economy and the safety of the world, and
we have begun to see, I think, in an important way the role of
the ocean.
prepared statement
Our contributions for water, climate, and fisheries
management issues have been in the news more than ever. Our
technology services, resource management capabilities, and
dedicated people have performed very well.
We believe that our 1999 request will help insure the
continued delivery of these essential services. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. D. James Baker
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget
Request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As America moves into the 21st century, our domestic security and
global competitiveness will depend on the types of capabilities,
services and products delivered by NOAA. In a period of strongly
competing government priorities, the President's fiscal year 1999
Budget Request for NOAA demonstrates the Agency's important
contributions by providing the resources to maintain essential
services, ensure continuing progress in critical investment areas, and
address statutory obligations. This proposed budget represents an
appropriate balance among the environmental assessment, prediction and
stewardship needs of the Nation. I am accompanied today by Terry
Garcia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere; William O.
Mehuron, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
Andy Moxam, Acting Chief Financial Officer/Chief Administrative
Officer.
In recognition of how important the ocean is to us all, the United
Nations has declared 1998 as the Year of the Ocean. As the only
government agency with ``ocean'' in its name, NOAA is pleased that the
challenges of caring for our ocean and coastal waters and the benefits
the Nation reaps from them are being highlighted throughout the year.
Our ocean and coastal waters are vital to America's economic well
being. One-third of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is derived from
coastal counties. The number of people who depend on our shores for
sustenance is increasing with over half of our population living within
50 miles of the coast. Roughly 95 percent by weight of all U.S. foreign
trade is transported by water and passes through our ports and 85
percent of all tourism dollars are received in the coastal states.
Living marine resources are vital to many coastal areas. The commercial
fishing industry, for example, harvested $3.5 billion worth of fish in
1996, and recreational fishermen took an estimated 64 million fishing
trips.
Although the economic significance of our ocean and coastal
resources is indisputable, a growing body of evidence alarmingly
indicates that our oceans and Great Lakes are threatened. Many of our
commercial and recreational fisheries are over-fished. In addition,
polluted runoff is being connected to deadly and dangerous algal blooms
such as Pfiesteria, and red tides producing paralytic shellfish
poisoning and other poisons, all of which threaten our coastal
communities.
The Year of the Ocean presents NOAA with a chance to educate more
Americans than ever before on the tremendous importance and fragility
of our Nation's ocean, coastal and Great Lake resources.
the noaa role
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires
that agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives,
and performance measures for all major programs. The Department of
Commerce (DOC) has embarked on an effort to capitalize on the synergy
between DOC programs, and to implement a strategic plan which
enunciates a central mission statement and links our programs together.
The Commerce Strategic Plan, issued in September 1997, has three
strategic themes. They are:
Theme 1.--Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in
the global marketplace, by strengthening and safeguarding the Nation's
economic infrastructure;
Theme 2.--Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and
technology and an unrivaled information base; and,
Theme 3.--Provide effective management and stewardship of the
Nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic
opportunities.
As part of the Department of Commerce, NOAA's mission is to
describe and predict changes in the Earth's environment, and to
conserve and manage the nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure
sustainable economic opportunities. NOAA conducts research to develop
new technologies, improve operations, and supply the scientific basis
for managing natural resources and solving environmental problems.
NOAA's comprehensive system for acquiring observations--from satellites
and radars to ships and submersibles--provides the quality data and
information needed for the safe conduct of daily life and the basic
functioning of a modern society. Common end products and services
include weather warnings and forecasts, climate observations and
predictions, environmental technologies, marine fisheries statistics,
nautical charts, assessments of environmental changes, and hazardous
materials response information. These capabilities, products and
services support the domestic security and global competitiveness of
the United States, and affect the lives of nearly every citizen every
day.
With its public and private partners, NOAA is a leader in climate
diagnostic research and forecasts, environmental monitoring and
research, fisheries management, and sustainable use of the coast. Most
recently, NOAA demonstrated its scientific preeminence by the
successful advance forecast of the 1997/1998 El Nino and the provision
of global climate change information to policymakers at the U.N.
climate conference in Kyoto, Japan. In fulfilling NOAA's key trustee
responsibilities for marine resources, NOAA has taken a number of
important steps to ensure the recovery of overfished species, such as
the New England groundfish. NOAA is also pioneering innovative federal-
state partnerships through the Endangered Species Act to recover marine
species at risk. NOAA has played a key role in developing a national
strategy for Harmful Algal Blooms and in Federal efforts to assist the
states and coastal communities in assessing, monitoring, preventing,
and responding to harmful algal bloom outbreaks such as Pfiesteria,
red, and brown tides.
NOAA's strategic planning process defines and validates its
business activities, guides the development of operating plans, and
forms the basis for management decisions. The Strategic Plan provides
the framework for articulating and organizing the agency's goals and
work objectives. NOAA's goals for the future will enhance opportunities
for our citizens, the health of the U.S. economy, the protection of our
environment, and the sustainable use of our natural resources.
The challenge of investing strategically in the Nation's future is
accompanied by the requirement to be more effective, to identify and
realize opportunities for savings and to focus the efforts of
Government on what matters to people. Performance is what counts, and
the fiscal year 1999 budget includes measures which track results to
the level of investment. Success in this changing world increasingly
will depend on partnerships with business and industry, universities,
state and local governments, and international partners. NOAA will
continue to develop partnerships to leverage resources and talent, and
provide the means for meeting program requirements more effectively.
highlights of the fiscal year 1999 budget
To ensure the continued delivery of essential services, technology
and science to the Nation, NOAA's total fiscal year 1999 request is
$2.117 billion in new budget authority. This request provides the
resources needed for NOAA to achieve its mission. This request also
allows NOAA to perform an essential role in a number of interagency and
Presidential initiatives, including, the Natural Disaster Reduction
Initiative, the President's Clean Water Initiative, the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, and the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program. Significant changes in the fiscal year 1999 budget
include:
--$28.3 million (as part of the interagency Natural Disaster
Reduction Initiative (NDRI)) to maintain the National Weather
Service operational infrastructure and ensure the provision of
weather warnings and forecasts to the public, consistent with
the recommendations contained in a study conducted by John F.
Kelly, BGD/Gen (Ret), An Assessment of the Fiscal Requirements
to Operate the Modernized National Weather Service during
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. Additional increases for NDRI
include $4.2 million for the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction
System (AHPS), a real-time modeling and data analysis system
which will significantly improve flood forecasting and water
management in the U.S.; $3.4 million to continue the
replacement of the currently obsolete radiosonde upper air
monitoring network; $1 million for the Health of the Atmosphere
program which will answer key science questions associated with
proposed lower ozone and particulate matter standards now under
consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency; $1.5
million for the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
(DARP) to fulfill NOAA's legislative mandates and public
trusteeship responsibilities for coastal and marine resources;
$1 million for research dealing with coastal hazards such as
harmful algal blooms and the growing hypoxic ``dead'' zone in
the Gulf of Mexico; $5 million to lease or purchase a massively
parallel processing computer for NOAA's Forecast System
Laboratory to improve national and regional-scale weather
prediction models; and $1.4 million to expand work with coastal
states in developing risk atlases. In total, NOAA's request
includes $55 million for important new activities to reduce the
cost of natural hazards.
--$33.6 million to continue the Administration's commitment to
restore the wealth of American's fisheries, protect marine
species faced with extinction, and conserve habitat important
to living marine resources through the implementation of NOAA's
management and research obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species
Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other authorities.
Meeting these commitments will require additional resources to
manage effectively the Nation's billion dollar commercial
fisheries and the marine recreational fisheries enjoyed by
millions around the country.
--A total of $22 million for the Clean Water Initiative. These funds
provide the necessary resources to meet both the scientific and
management needs to address polluted run-off, the major source
of pollution in coastal waters today. The biological
consequences of polluted runoff problems can be seen in many
coastal areas and include the increase in harmful algal blooms,
Pfiesteria, red and brown tides, as well as hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. The economic consequences of polluted run-off are
significant. Last year for example in the Chesapeake Bay, $40
million was lost to the local economy because of the Pfiesteria
outbreak. It is estimated that over $1 billion has been lost
during the past decade because of harmful algal blooms. Of the
$22 million requested, $12 million is included in the Coastal
Zone Management program to support state efforts to address
polluted run-off; $9 million is for scientific research and
monitoring of harmful algal blooms, including Pfiesteria; and
$1 million is to address toxic pollution through the Coastal
Resource Coordinators program.
--$153.4 million is requested for NESDIS to continue to ensure
continuous Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
(GOES) and Polar-orbiting satellite coverage, including
environmental observing services. This increase is primarily
for acquisition of GOES N-Q spacecraft which contract was
awarded to Hughes in February 1998. An additional $64.7 (an
increase of $30.7 million over the 1998 enacted levels) is
required to meet NOAA's commitment to share development costs
with the Department of Defense for the National Polar-orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS).
--$5.1 million to support $2.6 million in ongoing activities (NOS/
Coastal Ocean Science $1.3 million; NMFS $1.3 million) and $2.5
million for new contributions (NOS/ORCA $1.9 million; NMFS $0.6
million) to the Administration's South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative. The South Florida Initiative is an
integrated effort among federal, tribal, state and non-
governmental partners to halt the degradation and restore the
function of the South Florida ecosystem. NOAA supports the only
portion of the South Florida Initiative exclusively devoted to
restoring and protecting the coastal and marine portions of the
South Florida ecosystem.
--$4 million needed to improve our understanding of climate and air
quality and provide the scientific basis for national policy
decisions in key environmental areas. This request also
includes $2 million for the Climate and Global Change program
to augment current efforts to develop regionally specific
seasonal-to-interannual climate modeling and prediction over
North America, and to improve the definition of sources and
sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The request also includes
an increase of $1 million to continue the Administration's
support for the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the
Environment (GLOBE) program.
Highlights of the request are presented, as follows, in the context
of the NOAA Strategic Plan with an emphasis on the major operational
units and programs contributing to the strategic goals. NOAA's
Strategic Plan describes the goals and objectives that have been
established to achieve its vision. The Strategy consists of seven
interrelated goals that are grouped into two missions, Environmental
Assessment and Prediction and Environmental Stewardship. Resources for
program administration, acquisition of data, aircraft services, and
supporting infrastructure are included in the total request for each
strategic goal.
environmental assessment and prediction
Advancing Short-Term Warning and Forecast Services.--To provide
significantly improved short-term warning and forecast products and
services that enhance public safety and the economic productivity of
the Nation.
The Nation continued to experience the benefits associated with the
weather service modernization in fiscal year 1997. Improvements in the
accuracy and timeliness of severe weather and natural hazards event
warnings and forecasts are directly linked to modernized technologies,
such as Next Generation Weather Radars (NEXRAD), new and improved
weather satellites. Deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive
Processing System (AWIPS) around the country is the cornerstone of
modernization. These improvements have been attributed to saving lives
and reducing the impacts of natural disasters. For example:
--Record flooding occurred in the Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley and the
Pacific Northwest during fiscal year 1997. Flood potential
statements were issued by the National Weather Service (NWS)
eight weeks in advance of the Upper Midwest Flooding and three
to seven days in advance of the Pacific Northwest flooding.
NWS's success was pointed out by the headline in the December
31, 1996, Seattle Times ``NWS Forecasters Hit Bulls-Eye
Twice.'' Using rainfall estimates provided by the state-of-the-
art Doppler weather surveillance radar, meteorologists were
able to pinpoint the location and movement of intense rain
cells and provide timely and accurate flood warnings.
--In addition, tornado outbreaks in Arkansas and Texas resulted in
over 50 deaths and extensive property damage. However, the use
of advanced remote sensing technologies and Doppler radar
allowed NWS forecasters to issue tornado warnings with lead
times from 18-32 minutes, minimizing the loss of life.
NOAA requests $1,325 million to address this strategic goal, a net
increase of $175 million over the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
NOAA accomplishes this goal primarily through the efforts of the
National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental Satellite,
Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR).
For the NWS, the request provides $489.3 million for operations and
research, a net increase of $34.8 million from the 1998 enacted levels.
This includes $28.3 million to implement the budgets and associated
program activities recommended in the study conducted by John J. Kelly,
BGD/Gen (Ret). In addition, NOAA requests $152.8 million, a net
decrease of $32.9 million, for major systems acquisition supporting the
modernization. Within the total amount for NWS operations, an increase
of $4.2 million is requested to initiate the national implementation of
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS), a real-time modeling and
data analysis system which will significantly improve flood forecasting
and water management in the U.S. Within the total amount for systems
acquisition, the NWS requests $67.7 million for continued acquisition
and deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System
(AWIPS), a decrease of $49.2 million over the 1998 enacted levels.
This request provides $502.6 million for NESDIS, to ensure
continuous Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and
Polar-orbiting satellite coverage including environmental observing
services, an increase of $153.4 million from the fiscal year 1998
enacted levels. This increase is primarily for acquisition of GOES N-Q
spacecraft, the contract for which was awarded to Hughes in February
1998.
An additional $64.7 million is required to meet NOAA's commitment
to share development costs with the Department of Defense for the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS), an increase of $30.7 million over fiscal year 1998.
This request provides OAR a total of $52.7 million, a net decrease
of $3.5 million from the 1998 enacted levels, to advance the science of
weather forecasting over land, sea, and space and to improve weather-
related observing technologies. Many of these activities are key
components of the interagency NDRI, which will improve the Nation's
resiliency to extreme natural events.
Implementing Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasts.--To
increase society's ability to mitigate economic losses and social
disruption by working together with academic and multinational
partners, in order to issue monthly and seasonal probability outlooks
for temperature and rainfall for up to a year in advance.
--During fiscal year 1997, NOAA successfully forecasted, with six
months lead time, the 1997/1998 El Nino. NOAA worked in
partnership with agencies having El Nino emergency
preparedness/response responsibilities, including the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Agency for International
Development, and state and local authorities.
--Continuing progress was also made by NOAA towards operational
status of the ENSO observing system, including the TOGA/TAO
buoy array, to monitor waters of the Pacific for the signs of
an emerging El Nino.
--Positive skill was achieved in forecasting seasonal U.S.
temperature for 15 out of the last 17 monthly forecasts.
NOAA requests $105.4 million to address this strategic goal, a net
decrease of $0.5 million from the amount enacted in fiscal year 1998.
This goal will be accomplished primarily through the efforts of the
NOAA Climate and Global Change (C&GC) Program, the OAR Environmental
Research Laboratories (ERL's), NESDIS, and the NWS National Centers for
Environmental Prediction.
This request provides $59.9 million for OAR and the Office of
Global Programs for a number of seasonal-to-interannual activities.
Part of these funds will be used to maintain the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) observing system on an operational basis, to provide
essential measurement for skillful forecasts of the ENSO phenomenon.
This $59.9 million includes $4.9 million for NOAA to capitalize on its
investments to understand and predict climate variations on seasonal to
interannual timescales in: (1) essential research for understanding
climate variability, and using this understanding for improved
forecasts (2) expanded ocean/climate observations, (3) improved and
expanded international climate predictions and application, and (4)
improved understanding of regional impacts in the United States. NOAA
requests an additional $2 million in fiscal year 1999 to expand climate
assessment activities, particularly in the area of regional
applications for North America.
The request includes $4.7 million for NWS climate prediction
activities including monitoring global climate variability, forecasting
El Nino variability, and forecasting U.S. seasonal temperature and
precipitation variability.
This request also contains $37.2 million for continued operation of
NOAA's three National environmental data centers, including the
development of the NOAA Virtual Data System and a program to rescue
valuable aging environmental data.
Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Changes.--In the global
environment, specifically for: climate change and greenhouse warming,
ozone layer depletion, and air quality improvement.
NOAA continues to make progress in understanding and documenting
decadal to centennial climate changes. NOAA is providing major
scientific input and leadership to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
United Nation's Environment Programme (UNEP), and North American
Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO).
--During 1997, NOAA scientists provided preparatory input to and
served as the science advisor for the U.S. delegation at the
Third Meeting of the IPCC in Kyoto, Japan (December 1997).
--In fiscal year 1997, NOAA improved the representation of the oceans
in coupled climate prediction models and improved understanding
of the role of the oceans in the carbon cycle.
--NOAA also produced the first reliable record of decadal changes in
North American water vapor, which is a key component of the
radiation balance in the climate system.
NOAA requests $86.9 million to address this strategic goal, a net
decrease of $1.2 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
This goal will be accomplished largely through the efforts of the NOAA
Climate and Global Change Program and the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR).
NOAA's OAR requests a total of $71.9 million for this goal, which
includes increases of $1 million for GLOBE and $1 million for the
Health of the Atmosphere program.
In fiscal year 1999, the increase in NOAA's Health of the
Atmosphere research program will be concentrated on providing the
scientific basis for improved air quality. Base funding in this area
includes characterizing rural ozone episodes and making needed upgrades
to critical air quality monitoring networks.
The fiscal year 1999 increase will also allow a new focus on the
science needed for decisions associated with the recent rulings on new
lower U.S. ozone and fine particulate matter standards, including
measurements, modeling, defining chemical composition, and regional
transport of ozone and fine particulate matter. Also included is a net
decrease of $3.2 million for program reductions, terminations and
distributed infrastructure changes.
Promote Safe Navigation.--By working to revolutionize U.S. marine
navigation, mapping and surveying, and to provide a precise satellite-
derived reference system as the basis for the Nation's 21st Century
positioning needs.
--During 1997, NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) produced 338 new
editions of nautical charts, set the stage for private sector
partnerships to update nautical surveys, installed 194 Federal
Base Network stations and 28 continuously operating reference
stations that will form the basic positional framework for the
Nation's future spatial data infrastructure, and entered into a
cooperative agreement to research, develop and implement a
commercially viable national Physical Oceanographic Real-Time
System (PORTS) project.
--In addition, NOAA tested Global Positioning System (GPS) technology
designed to measure real-time under-vessel clearance for ships
to help prevent groundings. NOAA also evaluated new technology
to improve the efficiency of shoreline mapping for nautical
charts and other coastal geographical needs.
NOAA is preparing a report that responds to three requests
contained in the conference report accompanying fiscal year 1998
appropriations. NOAA was requested to address the future of its
hydrographic fleet, mechanisms and alternatives to maintain a core set
of capabilities, and a plan to acquire not less than 50 percent of its
hydrographic services from the private sector by fiscal year 1999. The
plan, currently under review, will focus on those three issues. NOAA
distributed a draft copy of the plan to the navigation community and
held a meeting with interested constituents on January 29th. The
purpose of the meeting was to obtain the navigation community's input
and views on the draft plan. We have incorporated their comments into
the plan, which is undergoing final review.
A more comprehensive analysis of the nautical charting program was
presented to this subcommittee last spring. It analyzed the surveying,
charting, and water level programs; and provided options for reducing
the survey backlog. The continual maintenance policy for the nautical
chart suite mentioned in that testimony has been implemented. Also, the
Coast Guard is conducting tests of NOAA's digital raster charts and we
are hopeful the Coast Guard will deem this product as a suitable
supplement to using paper charts. Finally, NOAA's implementation of
vector format data for major ports and harbors is on schedule for
delivery in December of this year.
NOAA requests $86.2 million to address this strategic goal, a net
decrease of $6.6 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
This goal will be accomplished largely through NOS mapping, charting,
geodesy, and tide and current observation subactivities. NOS requests
$50.9 million to acquire hydrographic data, update nautical surveys,
and deliver digital nautical charting databases, a decrease of $5.3
million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels. This funding will
allow the continued reduction of the critical survey backlog.
NOS requires $11 million to acquire oceanographic data and to make
available marine predictions and advanced oceanographic observations
systems important to pilots and port authorities, a decrease of $0.4
million from 1998. NOS requests $19.2 million to provide a national
spatial reference system that utilizes the GPS for navigation and
positioning, a decrease of $1.5 million from 1998. This funding will
bring 20 more Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) online,
making the CORS System 75 percent complete.
The fiscal year 1999 proposed appropriation establishes authority
to collect fees to begin to offset costs associated with providing
navigation services. A proposal for the fee is being developed in
conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard and is estimated to offset the
overall NOAA budget authority and appropriation by $2.5 million in
fiscal year 1999.
environmental stewardship
Build Sustainable Fisheries.--To increase the Nation's wealth and
quality of life through sustainable fisheries that support fishing
industry jobs, safe and wholesome foods, and recreational
opportunities.
--During fiscal year 1997, NOAA continued to provide national
leadership to maintain and improve the health of U.S.
fisheries. NOAA has made good progress toward assessing the
status of fishery stocks through numerous surveys and technical
reviews.
--In addition, NOAA advanced fishery predictions through research on
multi-species modeling changes and in the ocean climate and
predator-prey dynamics that also address global ecosystems.
--NOAA has also implemented harvest capacity reduction programs, and
reduced capacity by 19 percent in the New England groundfish
fishery through a buy-back program.
--NOAA developed, after extensive public comment, proposed and
interim final essential fish habitat guidelines to the Fishery
Management Councils in accordance with the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NOAA requests $327.9 million to address this strategic goal, a net
decrease of $32.3 million from the amount enacted for fiscal year 1998.
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the National Ocean Service (NOS)
have primary responsibility for accomplishing this goal.
Within this amount NMFS' request is $258.4 million which includes:
$9 million in base program restorations and increases to expand the
collection, evaluation, and dissemination of fisheries data including
the development of strategies for bycatch reduction; an increase of
$8.1 million is requested for fisheries management programs under the
provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, including funding for Regional Fishery Management Councils and
NMFS to develop and amend fishery management plans to end overfishing
and rebuild stocks, implement the new national standards, include
essential fish habitat identifications, and meet other requirements; an
increase of $1.5 million specifically for implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's National
Standard 8 requirements for additional economic data; $0.9 million in
additional funds to improve at-sea and shoreside compliance; and funds
to provide grants and other assistance for fisheries development
programs.
To accomplish this goal, OAR requests $25.8 million in the Sea
Grant Program, National Undersea Research Program (NURP), and marine
environmental research to: improve technologies for tracking and
estimating aquatic biomass; advance aquaculture and economic growth
initiatives; apply new computing techniques; and provide for other
research activities including in-situ undersea research. In addition,
NOS requests $9.2 million to strengthen abilities to assess and predict
natural and human-induced changes and their impact on fisheries health,
including funds for NOAA to continue participating in the Global
Ecosystem Dynamics project (GLOBEC) in the northwest Atlantic. The
request also includes an increase of $0.6 million for NOAA's Ecology
and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) research program to
improve prediction and control of this coastal threat.
The fiscal year 1999 request includes proposed appropriation
language to authorize the collection of user fees to begin to offset
costs associated with providing fisheries research, management, and
enforcement. A proposal for the fees is being developed, and receipts
will be collected from fees assessed on landings of commercial
fishermen in the U.S. The $19.8 million in estimated fees will be used
to offset the overall NOAA budget authority and appropriation in fiscal
year 1999.
Although no new funds are requested for new vessels in fiscal year
1999, funds to acquire replacement fisheries research vessel capacity
are planned for future budget requests in fiscal year 2000-2003. NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service requires new fisheries research
vessels to replace the existing research fleet that has an average age
of 34 years. These ships do not meet accepted international standards
for acoustic quietness, an important factor in determining fish
populations and setting fishery management quotas.
NOAA is presently using several approaches to collect marine data
with ships. For oceanographic and atmospheric data, NOAA is using three
agency ships and outsourcing arrangements with UNOLS. For nautical
charting data, NOAA is using three agency ships and contracts with
private industry. For fisheries stock assessment and research and
marine mammal research, NOAA is using nine agency ships and outsourcing
arrangements with private industry. NOAA expects to continue this
approach for the next several years while expanding the amount of
charting data collected by private industry.
Recover Protected Species.--To conserve marine species and to
recover those in danger of extinction.
--NOAA both listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
made substantial progress at reversing the decline of others in
fiscal year 1997. The southern Oregon and California
populations of coho salmon were listed as threatened with
extinction, and stocks of steelhead trout as endangered or
threatened on the Upper Columbia River (Oregon, Washington and
Idaho) and the northern California coast. Also listed as
endangered was the Steller sea lion population in the western
Gulf of Alaska.
--During 1997, NOAA implemented several marine mammal take reduction
plans and updated fifty marine mammal stock assessments
pursuant to its responsibilities under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. NOAA also strengthened turtle excluder device
requirements, increased cooperation with Mexico to maximize
hatchling production of turtles, and conducted hundreds of ESA
Section 7 and Section 10 consultations. These and other
accomplishments have improved the status of these species while
minimizing the impact of conservation measures on economic and
social activities.
NOAA is working with the states to find innovative means to manage
and conserve depleted species that preclude the need for Federal
listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA has made use of
the ESA's flexibility to work cooperatively with the States of Oregon
and Maine to develop conservation plans for salmon that avoided
listings.
NOAA requests $80.7 million to address this strategic goal, a net
increase of $7.9 million over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.
Primarily through the efforts of NMFS, a total of $37.3 million is
needed for status reviews and stock assessments; and $38.8 million, is
required for developing recovery, conservation and take reduction plans
for the management of protected and depleted species.
These requested increases will ensure that NMFS can address major
responsibilities for responding to west coast salmon listings under the
ESA, expand recovery actions for endangered Kemp's ridley turtles,
strengthen Atlantic right whale recovery efforts, and establish
cooperative conservation program agreements under the ESA with
additional states, including Alaska, California and Washington.
The increase also will support the recently enacted International
Dolphin Conservation Program (providing for domestic implementation of
the international agreement and ensuring the U.S. meets its study and
tracking obligations under the agreement), continues a four-year study
on the effects of encirclement of dolphins as a method for harvesting
tuna, and develops a tracking and monitoring system for verification of
``dolphin-safe'' tuna being imported into the U.S. The desired outcome
of this effort is to recover species in danger of extinction in a
manner compatible with the sustainable use of marine resources.
Sustain Healthy Coasts.--In order to maintain the health,
productivity, and biodiversity of the Nation's coastal ecosystems.
--In fiscal year 1997, NOAA provided technical support to the
Environmental Protection Agency at 350 Coastal Superfund waste
sites and critical data and resources to the interagency South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration effort by initiating an
integrated coastal monitoring program. NOAA also provided
technical and scientific assistance to the U.S. Coast Guard at
over 98 oil and chemical spills in coastal waters.
--In fiscal year 1997, NOAA jointly sponsored research with the
National Science Foundation in the Great Lakes and along the
Pacific and Atlantic coasts to improve predictions of lake and
ocean conditions, and the effect of events such as El Nino on
coastal resources. NOAA has also sponsored innovative research
on the causes and effect of the cumulative stresses on our
Nation's estuaries.
--In fiscal year 1997, as in prior years, NOAA reviewed upwards of
10,000 Federal permits, including over 1,500 comprehensive
evaluations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate, if necessary,
Federal actions that may adversely affect fish habitat.
NOAA requests $227.7 million for this goal, a net decrease of $14.6
million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels to address the
practical needs and concerns of resource managers, to strengthen the
watershed and regional management frameworks provided by federal-state
partnerships, such as the Coastal Zone Management program, and to build
partnerships with coastal communities.
This goal will be accomplished primarily through the efforts of
NOS, NMFS, OAR and NESDIS. The fiscal year 1999 request includes $153
million for NOS, an increase of $18.3 million over the fiscal year 1998
enacted levels. The OAR request includes $40.2 million, a decrease of
$15.7 million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted levels. The NMFS
request includes $18.4 million, a decrease of $0.3 million below fiscal
year 1998. The NMFS request includes an increase of $2.3 million for
habitat restoration activities and base funding for the Restoration
Center to restore degraded habitats and to transfer technology to the
public and private sectors. The NESDIS request includes $6.2 million,
no change from the fiscal year 1999 base.
Fiscal year 1999 funding for this goal supports NOAA's
contributions to several important interagency efforts and
Administration priorities including: the Natural Disaster Reduction
Initiative (NDRI), the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(NOPP), the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative and the
Clean Water Initiative.
NOAA requests $99.8 million to protect, restore and understand
coastal habitats. Included in this request is an increase of $3 million
to allow the Damage Assessment and Restoration Program to recover funds
for restoration following damage to natural resources for which NOAA is
the federal trustee. A $2.5 million increase ($1.9 million NOS; $0.6
million NMFS) will provide monitoring and research critical to the
interagency South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative; and $1.4
million ($1 million, NOS; $0.4 million, OAR) will support analysis of
the causes and impacts of hypoxia or low oxygen ``dead zones'' in the
northern Gulf of Mexico. The request also includes $0.8 million (a
reduction of $0.7 million from amounts provided in fiscal year 1998) to
implement the National Invasive Species Act.
NOAA has also proposed the creation of a new Office of Response and
Restoration (ORR) within NOS, which will include the existing Hazardous
Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) and the Damage
Assessment Center. The creation of this new office consolidates
recognized expertise within NOS to fulfill a range of NOAA
responsibilities, including planning for and working to prevent spills,
providing scientific support during spill events, assessing risk to
NOAA trust resources, recommending protective cleanup strategies, and
restoring injured resources. ORR will provide a focal point, thereby
strengthening and facilitating coordination between all of the agency's
coastal resource management programs, NOAA's response and restoration
programs, and other Federal and State agencies with analogous
responsibilities. NOAA is confident that the consolidation of existing
expertise into ORR will insure the development of effective solutions
for protecting and restoring coastal resources threatened by releases
of oil and hazardous materials. In addition, the creation of ORR will
allow for the development of new capabilities designed to reduce risk
to coastal resources from hazardous material releases and other
environmental threats.
To promote clean coastal waters, NOAA requests $75.8 million. This
includes a total of $22 million increase to support a number of
activities for addressing degraded coastal waters as part of the
Administration's Clean Water Initiative.
The new funds will allow NOAA to help coastal states monitor,
maintain, and improve coastal water quality by attacking the major
cause of coastal water pollution, runoff pollution from nonpoint
sources, as well as address associated symptoms such as hypoxia and
harmful algal blooms. Three new states, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio
entered the Coastal Zone Management Program in fiscal year 1997 and
1998, the first additions to the program in 10 years. (NOAA expects to
add Minnesota to the program in fiscal year 1999). The increase will
allow these three new states to begin developing coastal non-point
source pollution control programs, as well as allowing the 29 states
with approved coastal non-point control programs to begin implementing
their programs. In addition, the new funding will enable NOAA to
continue leading the multiagency National Pfiesteria Research and
Monitoring Strategy and ECOHAB as well as providing grants to states,
universities, and communities to conduct rapid monitoring and
assessment response activities to harmful algal bloom events. NOAA will
also have enhanced capability to protect and restore NOAA trust
resources impacted by hazardous waste sites by conducting natural
resource assessments and remediations.
In addition, NOAA requests $6.5 million to help reduce the costs of
natural disasters in coastal areas. As part of the interagency NDRI,
$1.4 million in new funding in fiscal year 1999 will initiate the
development of coastal risk characterization to provide critical
information to local, state, federal, and private entities in order to
assess the exposure and vulnerability of coastal communities to natural
hazards. The increase will also enable NOAA to apply satellite-derived
data provided through the NESDIS Ocean Remote Sensing Program to more
effectively evaluate and mitigate natural hazards in coastal areas and
reduce the impact of natural hazards on coastal habitat.
The fiscal year 1999 request will allow NOAA to continue these
activities and address serious new concerns, such as the introduction
and spread of non-indigenous species, the growing hypoxic, or ``dead-
zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico, the causes and impacts of harmful algal
blooms, and the rising costs of natural disasters in coastal
communities.
In addition, NOAA's request reflects our proposal to establish a
new science office within the National Ocean Service to build the
strong scientific foundation essential for sustainable use of coastal
resources. This science office will integrate a comprehensive suite of
research, monitoring, assessment, and technical assistance capabilities
into national centers of excellence to address critical national
coastal environmental problems, build better linkages among NOAA's
coastal programs that are responsible for ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes resources, and strengthen the scientific basis underlying
effective coastal management. The office will provide high-quality
science for predicting coastal ocean, Great Lakes, and watershed
processes, and will deliver data, information, products, and technical
assistance to NOAA and to its other Federal, state, academic, non-
governmental, and public partners. It will also capitalize on a strong
regional presence and partnerships between NOAA and external scientific
and technical expertise to improve the scientific basis for
environmental decisions in coastal areas of the U.S. Through this new
science office, the National Ocean Service will not only improve its
ability to better serve its management responsibilities in the coastal
zone and other coastal protected areas, but will also provide NOAA with
an important new tool for improving its efforts to build sustainable
fisheries, recover protected species, and maintain coastal habitat
areas essential for our nation's fisheries and coastal economies. The
establishment of the new scientific office is a direct response to
recommendations provided by NOAA's Coastal Stewardship Task Force to
improve the effectiveness of NOAA's coastal programs.
reducing costs and improving effectiveness
In an environment of tightening dollars and increasingly complex
challenges, NOAA is reducing costs and improving program effectiveness.
NOAA is saving money through streamlining personnel and processes,
outsourcing where appropriate, and leveraging external resources and
talent. NOAA holds managers accountable for results and requires use of
performance measures to validate progress. The highest priority is
given to ensuring that critical services are provided as efficiently
and effectively as possible.
conclusion
As I have discussed above, NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget
represents the most cost effective means to promote the Nation's
environmental and economic advantage, while maintaining an appropriate
balance among the environmental assessment and prediction and
environmental stewardship needs of the Nation. We welcome the coming
discussions on our goals, priorities, and operations with the Congress,
our constituents, and the public. We believe that our budget will be
well received by all these groups because our budget represents
essential levels of investment to generate major economic returns.
Every day, in some way, every person in the U.S. is affected by the
mission of NOAA. Our budget enables us to continue this service.
Thank you. If you have any questions, I am prepared to answer them
at this time.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Doctor. I would simply echo a
comment that you made, which is that NOAA deserves to be
congratulated for the excellent job it did in predicting El
Nino. There is no question that you said it was coming. I do
not think anybody really recognized the impact of it, but you
certainly predicted it.
Equally important is much of the work you have been doing
in other wind-dramatic events and weather-dramatic events, such
as tornadoes. I think your agency has certainly acquitted
itself very well over the last year in using its resources to
inform the public on very critical issues.
Let me yield to the chairman of the full committee since he
has joined us.
Community development quotas [CDQ's] sunset legislation
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I do have to move on,
but I visited with Dr. Baker yesterday. Since then, Dr. Baker,
I have had an inquiry from the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council about the CDQ's for crab, and particularly the delay--I
think you have gotten a letter from them, too, about that. I do
not know if you have seen it yet. But my memory is that CDQ's
sunset at 2002, and it looks like you are not even going to
implement these until 2000. I do not see how we will have the
time to determine whether there is a fair way to allocate
opportunities to the indigenous people of these remote villages
unless they can be approved. So I would hope that we could move
on with that.
Fishery stamps
The other thing I wanted to tell you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Hollings, and Senator Domenici, is I suggested to Dr. Baker
yesterday that we consider creating something like a duck
stamp, but instead a fishery stamp. Something to try to get a
revenue stream into some of these areas, from those people who
are really taking advantage and using the system. Not on a user
fee concept as such, but as a one-time thing. Maybe annually.
Somehow to devise one, depending on the fishery you are in. Our
people who hunt have not had any objection to duck stamps. We
have, in the State of Alaska, a king salmon stamp. I do think
that they have been totally acceptable to the fisherman to
acquire it as a condition of using a fishing license to fish
for king salmon.
I sympathize, Dr. Baker, with not having any new revenue
streams, and I must confess that the conversation came up in
conjunction with the proposed fee on ex vessel value of
commercial catch, which President Bush tried also, at a higher
level, and I assume everyone will understand that those of us
from the fishing communities are still opposed to that concept.
But I do believe that there is enormous growth of recreational
fishing and recreational boating. There should be some way to
establish a stream of revenue, and I think the people involved
that I know would support it.
I would hope that we could have a discussion along the
line, and maybe even with Dr. Baker's assistance, and see if we
cannot initiate an alternative to these user fees that are in
this budget. I have no specific questions for Dr. Baker today,
and I thank you for the courtesy.
Senator Gregg. I think that is an interesting idea. I know
that New Hampshire also has a fish stamp. We have a duck stamp,
too. So it does have some credibility.
Senator Hollings. You could have a cod stamp.
Senator Gregg. We could have a cod stamp. Striped bass
stamp. Flounder.
Senator Stevens. We would have to have a whole room full of
stamps if you are going to have one for each species.
Dr. Baker. After our discussion yesterday, Senator Stevens,
we put a group to work on that within NOAA. I think it is a
great idea.
Senator Gregg. I think it has some potential.
Senator Stevens. Yes.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
Turtle extruder
Senator Hollings. His issue is crabs. Mine is turtles and
the turtle extruder, the device tested last June that was
approved and permitted, but you never made the ruling on it.
The permits expire next month. And it's stuck in the
bureaucracy. Can we get a ruling on the turtle extruder?
Mr. Garcia. Senator, we expect to have the final rule out
in the next couple of weeks. The final rule will be effective--
it will be in time for the shrimping season.
Senator Hollings. You could give us a ruling tomorrow.
What's the matter?
Mr. Garcia. It is on its way to OMB.
Oceans study
Senator Hollings. With respect to the oceans study, you
have a $1 million amount that we put in temporarily last year,
hoping to get it started last year. But it costs $6 million for
the hearings and everything else associated with the study.
We're going to need $5 million more. Now, the House is going to
mark it up at the end of this month, I think, and we'll follow
soon after. And we do appreciate your input to this, because we
want to get experts like yourself involved. But we have to have
the money to get this project on its feet.
NOAA Corps
Now regarding the NOAA Corps. The policy, from what I
understand, is that the executive branch executes laws as
mandated, not execute the laws as some executives may want
them. The NOAA Corps still exists. You have letters about it.
But you, by attrition, are just getting rid of it, which is in
contradiction to the policy as set out by the Congress. We
still want the NOAA Corps, and by your words and actions you're
ruining the morale and everything else over there.
Dr. Baker. Senator Hollings, I understand fully what you
are saying, and I want to say that we have gone through a
process of downsizing the NOAA Corps simply because we have
fewer vessels. That has been one process that we have
undergone.
Then the administration asked us in addition to the
downsizing to look at this question of disestablishment. And as
you know it was administration policy to propose
disestablishment of the corps and to turn those functions over
to civilians.
Senator Hollings. Which the Congress disagreed with.
Dr. Baker. Which the Congress has told us that they
disagree with. And I have heard that message loud and clear. We
have gone back to the administration and said we want to look
at this, and we have gone inside, and we are looking very
carefully right now.
We expect to have an answer back to you shortly on what is
the minimum size of the NOAA Corps that we need to carry out
the essential functions that the corps can do. And we have
promised to have an answer back by March 18 on that.
Senator Hollings. At the same time, fortunately, and
commendably, you have more money in here for fisheries and
vessels. So you are building up the NOAA fleet and doing away
with the actual corps itself.
You need to reconcile that, and get policy in step with the
Congress, please.
Dr. Baker. We are working very hard on that, and I think we
are slowly bringing OMB around to this point of view.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Maybe we can bring them around more
dramatically.
Senator Hollings. You can.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
gap in Radar coverage
Dr. Baker, on my last trip to New Mexico, I talked to
meteorologists there, and they expressed concern about a very
large gap in radar coverage in New Mexico, especially in the
northwest corner, the four corners area.
This area includes the city of Farmington, which is a very
fast growing metropolitan area. I have a map here. I am going
to share it with you, leave it with you, which shows where this
most pronounced gap in radar coverage is.
I would like to ask you today, if you would please look at
this situation for me and describe in detail the gaps in this
coverage, especially in that four corners area shown on the
maps.
I would like to know whether you have any plans for doing
anything about it, and if you do, how much it might cost, and
if you don't, why you don't.
Dr. Baker. Certainly, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Radar Coverage in the Four Corners Area
There are no current plans to increase radar coverage in
the Four Corners area. The National Weather Service believes
that the much improved radar coverage, combined with the other
components of modernization is sufficient to provide equal or
better weather services.
assessment of overall Radar coverage in Mexico
Senator Domenici. I would suggest one other problem that
you might look at. I think you might recall, although it was a
very, very small tornado, but New Mexico had a tornado in the
little town of Cimarron, close to this area that I am
describing.
It was never expected up there, and interestingly enough,
the radar at Cannon Air Force Base did not see any sign of
this. The Nexrad system, which I believe is in existence,
didn't pick it up, and the Albuquerque radar can't see it
because of the surrounding mountains.
I wonder if there are any proposed changes to increase
coverage in this area since that tornado in 1996. I would say,
so there is no misunderstanding, I believe you are doing an
excellent job in New Mexico, but I would like you to assess the
overall Weather Service coverage of our State. Sometimes it
gets by, and they leave gaps, and I think that exists. Would
you do that, please?
Dr. Baker. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
Assessment of the Radar Coverage in New Mexico
Under the National Weather System (NWS) modernization, radar
coverage for New Mexico has been substantially improved over what
existed prior to modernization. Prior to modernization, there was very
limited radar coverage in New Mexico from three NWS radars in western
Texas, and through use of Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic
Control radars which provided very little precipitation information.
Now with the modernized Next Generation Weather Radar (WSR-88D)
network in place, Doppler radar coverage in New Mexico is provided by
ten radars. Four of these are located in New Mexico and the other six
in surrounding states. The vast majority of New Mexico is covered by
Doppler radar, however, there are a few areas that do not have complete
radar coverage. The areas without complete radar coverage are mostly
mountainous terrain which blocks radar signals (see attachment Figure
2-1b). The attachment (Figure 2-1a) also shows the almost complete lack
of radar coverage that existed prior to modernization within the Four
Corners area of New Mexico.
Doppler radar is only one part of the composite suite of new
observational systems that modernization has brought into operation.
New geostationary satellites and automated surface observing systems,
combined with Doppler radar, enable NWS to provide equal or better
weather service under the modernization.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.001
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave with
you for submission to the next witness questions on the SBA,
particularly on their Women's Entrepreneurial Program, and if
you would submit them for me I would be very pleased.
Senator Gregg. I certainly will.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Natural disaster reduction initiative
Doctor, on this interagency disaster task force that we
heard about yesterday from the Secretary, you are the biggest
contributor in the Department. Of course, you are the biggest
part of the Department, so that is reasonable. But of the $55
million, where is that coming from? Is it going to mean that
you are going to have to make programmatic changes? Will it
take away from other programmatic activity? Or is it just a
shifting around in the flow chart?
Dr. Baker. There are two pieces to that, Senator Gregg.
One, we felt it was very important that we address the
recommendations of the study that General Kelly made about what
was needed to have adequate base funding for the National
Weather Service. So of the $55 million for NOAA, $28.3 million
funds the recommendations of the Kelly study to make sure that
our infrastructure is in place.
Then we are proposing new funding for a number of things
that range from new applications of our advanced hydrologic
prediction system--this is a system that takes into account not
only existing water in the system, but also what our radars are
saying about water that is falling, or water that might be
falling, so we can do a much better job of flood forecasts.
We are doing that in two areas now, and our natural
disaster reduction initiative allows us to go to two new areas.
So a total of four. One is the Red River area up in North
Dakota, and the other is the Columbia River system in the
Pacific Northwest.
Our hope is that eventually we will be able to have this
advanced hydrologic prediction system everywhere in the country
that we expect to see flash floods. But we are making a start
there.
We are also putting part of that funding into biological
natural disasters, looking at pfiesteria and hypoxia research,
and part of the funding is going to enhance our oilspill
response activity.
AWIPS program
Senator Gregg. The AWIPS program. Yesterday we heard from
the Secretary that you folks are on the verge of a final
decision as to funding levels. How much over the $550 million
are we going to be? What are we going to be dropping from the
program because we could not afford it?
Dr. Baker. Senator, this has been an issue of concern to
all of us as we go forward with our modernization. It is the
last piece of modernization.
We have gone through two restructurings of the program
since I have been the Under Secretary, and I know there were
restructurings before. When I first came in 1993, we made a
major change in the way the program was put together.
We did another change in 1996, pulling out the software
development from the contractor, and we have been doing regular
briefings on the stage of the program. But it became clear
several months ago that although the system is working very
well, the 30 deployments that we have have shown that it
actually does pull together all the information and gives us
the information needs. And the users love it, and the other
weather station offices are calling for it. The fact is we did
not have an independent cost review of whether we were going to
make our target.
And so Bill Mehuron, our Acting Deputy Under Secretary,
commissioned an independent cost study, and they came in and
said to us, yes, the system is working great, but it is going
to cost you more than $550 million to do everything that you
plan to do.
And so we went back to the Weather Service and we said you
guys have got to reconcile this, and we need to know what we
can do for $550 million. And if there are some crucial things
that we can't, we want to know what they are, and what it is
going to cost. They are now busily working night and day to
give us an answer on this, and we expect to brief the Secretary
on Monday of next week about those questions you have just
asked. What is it going to cost, and what is going to be in or
not in the system. And we will have an independent cost review
of that so we can have some credibility there.
Senator Gregg. So when will you be briefing us?
Dr. Baker. I would expect within a few days.
NOAA-wide requirement for Space
Senator Gregg. Now, last year there was an item, at least
on the Senate side, for a new building at Goddard, which did
not make it through the process. This year that is not in the
request.
What is your plan relative to space?
Dr. Baker. We have about $735,000 in our budget to look at
NOAA-wide requirements for space, including the question of
what we do with our current activities that are currently in
Suitland and in Camp Springs.
The last time we looked at that, moving into the federally
owned facility at Goddard, it looked like it was the cheapest
way to go. With the message from Congress, we have gone back,
and we are relooking at what that would be.
We have done an environmental assessment. There are a lot
of advantages to our going onto a Federal facility with NASA,
but we understand the message from Congress. We are going back
and looking broadly at our space needs, and we will come back
to you with what those recommendations are.
Senator Gregg. The sooner the better, to make this budget
cycle.
Environmental assessment
Now, I think it was last year that the Atlantic States
fisheries group came up with a program for the lobster take,
and you are proceeding with a program, at the National Marine
Fisheries, and it doesn't appear that National Marine Fisheries
is giving a whole lot of credibility to what the Atlantic
States people did. My question is, do we expect when the
National Marine Fisheries finally comes out with something on
lobsters that they are going to listen to the people who
actually do the fishing?
Mr. Garcia. We had asked the Fisheries Service to go back
and do just that, and make sure that the environmental
assessment that they were going to issue included specifically
the Atlantic States proposal.
What we would like to see for a public review is a range of
options. We are not going to indicate in our document a
preferred option. Rather we are going to say that there is a
continuum, and here the options are on that continuum, and then
solicit public comment on those various options, and make a
decision at that point.
We have talked to the industry. We have been in discussions
with the Governor of Maine. We are talking to the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Council, and we are working very hard
to make sure that this is not prejudged, but rather that this
is truly a proposal for comment so that we could then--as we
did with the right whale issue--listen to the industry, and,
hopefully, craft a rule that is going to balance the interests
of the industry as well as the need of the resource. We were
very concerned, though, about the status of that resource.
Senator Gregg. I think that is a reasonable approach. Up to
now that has not been my sense of the direction it was going.
But as you outlined it, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
Do you have any questions?
Senator Hollings. No; I hope the briefers are still in
office after the briefing on Monday. [Laughter.]
Dr. Baker. So do we.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. Well, thank you. Do you have anything
further?
Dr. Baker. We appreciate all your support. We are making
progress on the oceans, thanks to your leadership here.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
We will be in recess for a few minutes.
[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
noaa weather service modernization--new mexico
Question. Dr. Baker, NOAA continues a significant modernization
effort of the National Weather Service (NWS). New Mexico is slated for
two of the 119 state-of-the-art Weather Forecast Offices (WFO)--one in
Albuquerque and one in Santa Teresa (called the El Paso WFO). This
modernization effort will provide each of these 119 Weather Forecast
Offices with at least one associated Doppler radar.
On my last trip to New Mexico, one of our meteorologists expressed
his concern that there are gaps in radar coverage in New Mexico,
especially in the northwestern, or Four Corners Area. This area
includes the City of Farmington, which has been experiencing robust
growth in population, air traffic, etc. A map, which I am glad to share
with you shows where this most pronounced gap in radar coverage occurs.
Would you please look into this situation for me and describe in
detail the gaps in radar coverage that New Mexico is experiencing,
especially in the Four Corners area of the State?
Answer. Under the National Weather Service (NWS) modernization,
radar coverage for New Mexico has been substantially improved over what
existed prior to modernization. Prior to modernization, there was very
limited radar coverage in New Mexico from three NWS radars in western
Texas, and through use of FAA Air Traffic Control radars which provided
very little precipitation information.
Now with the modernized Next Generation Weather Radar (WSR-88D)
network in place, Doppler radar coverage in New Mexico is provided by
ten radars. Four of these are located in New Mexico and the other six
in surrounding states. The vast majority of New Mexico is covered by
Doppler radar; however, there are a few areas that do not have complete
radar coverage. (See attachment Figure 2-1b). The areas without
complete radar coverage are mostly mountainous terrain which blocks
radar signals. (See attachment Figure 2-1a). This shows the almost
complete lack of radar coverage that existed prior to modernization
within the Four Corners area of the state. Doppler radar is only one
part of the composite suite of new observational systems that
modernization has brought into operation. New geostationary satellites
and automated surface observing systems, combined with Doppler radar
enable NWS to provide equal or better weather services under the
modernization.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.001
Question. Are there currently any plans to increase radar coverage
in this area that would address the gap in the Four Corners area?
Answer. There are no current plans to increase radar coverage in
the Four Corners area. NWS believes that the much improved radar
coverage, combined with the other components of modernization is
sufficient to provide equal or better weather services.
Question. Does the Weather Service have the flexibility to address
such gaps in coverage within the modernization plan? What options does
the Weather Service have to make adjustments in the modernization plan
to cover such areas?
Answer. The NWS modernization plan was predicated on the ``no
degradation of service'' requirement of the Weather Service
Modernization Act, Public Law 102-567, October 1992. Consequently, NWS
has had only the flexibility to address areas with degraded radar
coverage under modernization that would have led to a degradation in
weather services. For example, in 1995 the Secretary of Commerce
determined that degraded radar coverage in northern Indiana, northern
Alabama, and western Arkansas would cause a degradation of service and
added three new WSR-88D's.
Question. Dr. Baker, as you may recall, in July 1996, an unusual
event occurred in northeastern New Mexico in the City of Cimarron,
which experienced a small tornado. Fortunately, no one was killed, but
six were injured and several buildings were damaged. The DOD radar at
Cannon Air Force Base did not see any sign of this tornado on its
radar, which I believe is a NEXRAD system, and the Albuquerque radar
cannot see this area because of surrounding mountains.
Has the Weather Service instituted any changes in its program to
increase coverage in this area since the July 1996 tornado?
Answer. On July 25, 1996, a storm formed northwest of Cimarron
which is located in northeastern New Mexico. The Weather Service
Forecast Office in Albuquerque saw the storm on the Cannon Air Force
Base WSR-88D and issued a small stream and canyon advisory statement
for the potential flooding associated with the storm. Twenty minutes
later, officials in the Cimarron area reported watching a small tornado
move across the area which resulted in six injuries. The tornado, rated
an F2, was short lived. Since this tornado, the Albuquerque office has
increased its spotter training activities in northeastern New Mexico.
We believe this will assist in future coordination of severe or
significant weather in the area.
Question. Overall, how would you assess the Weather Service
coverage of New Mexico?
Answer. The overall coverage of New Mexico is excellent. New Mexico
receives radar coverage from ten radars. Four of these are located in
New Mexico and the other six in surrounding states.
In addition, New Mexico receives weather services from three newly
constructed Weather Forecast Offices. (Albuquerque, NM, El Paso, TX,
and Midland/Odessa, TX.) These new radars combined with other newly
installed observing technologies, such as Automated Surface Observing
System, are providing forecasters with unprecedented data, resulting in
significant improvements in weather warning and forecasts services.
Attached is a map showing the weather service radar coverage in New
Mexico.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.002
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
awips
Question. Speaking of AWIPS, could you review for us again what you
believe the real total costs will be, and why you think it will exceed
$550 million?
Answer. The program plan we are proposing results in the most cost-
effective outcome for achieving required capabilities, while complying
with legislation. The National Weather Service will deliver Advanced
Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) to all planned locations
with sufficient capability to replace primary existing systems within
the $550 million cap (Build 4.2). Build 4.2 includes initial
Interactive Forecast Preparation to support public and aviation
forecasts and to automate NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts, hydrologic
prediction system for river basins, some service backup and site system
monitoring, partial Next General Weather Radar (NEXRAD) workstation
functionality, and initial integration of local data acquisition and
dissemination systems. Significant field staffing reductions (106
positions) are achievable with these capabilities. Under this plan,
deployment would be accelerated so that all planned sites would be
installed by June 1999 with complete Build 4.2 capability.
We will have an independent assessment conducted of proposed
requirements beyond software Build 4.2, to ensure that any further
development is cost effective and to determine how they support further
staff reductions. This development will be accomplished under planned
product improvement/systems evolution. This independent assessment will
be completed by August 31, 1998.
Question. How long will it take to deploy the system?
Answer. The planned completion date for full deployment of AWIPS is
June 1999.
Question. In the case of NEXRAD radars, NOAA put South Carolina at
the end of the deployment schedule even though historically we have one
of the highest incidences of large, killer tornadoes. So where are we
in your deployment schedule for AWIPS?
Answer. Of the 135 deployment phase systems to be deployed, 21
systems have been completed. The limited deployment of the next group
of 19 systems will begin in June 1998. With a March 1998 authorization
of Key Decision Point IV and an acceleration of installation from seven
to ten systems per month, deployment will be completed in June 1999.
According to the current schedule, three cities in South Carolina
(Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville-Spartanburg) are scheduled for
deployment in March 1999.
oceans act
Question. On November 13, 1997, the Senate approved S. 1213, the
Oceans Act, my bill calling for a plan to explore, protect, and make
better use of our oceans and coasts. Last year, I included $1 million
in NOAA budget to get the Commission up and running. However, we
estimate that it will require an additional $5 million to fully fund
the Commission's staff and activities. Despite Secretary Daley's letter
supporting the legislation, the NOAA budget request proposes a decrease
of $1 million to terminate support for the Commission which it terms
``a one-year project''.
Is NOAA suggesting that the Commission can complete its work in one
year and for $1 million? Please explain.
Answer. The Administration has not made any independent analysis or
estimates on the costs of the Commission and has not concluded that the
Commission could complete its work in one year. Last fall, Secretary
Daley went on record in support of the duration and funding levels
established in S. 1213. However, in preparing its fiscal year 1999
budget request the Administration concluded it would be premature to
propose funding to carry out legislation that has yet to be sent to the
President. The Administration concluded it would be inappropriate to
request specific funding levels before an Act, along with its
congressionally established level for the authorization of
appropriations, is approved by the Congress.
Question. Can I count on your support for adequate funding for the
Commission?
Answer. NOAA supports a Commission that is adequately funded and
will support efforts to ensure that the Commission has the resources
necessary to fulfill its mission.
Pending legislation grants the President discretion to utilize
agency staff as necessary to fulfill responsibilities under the Act.
There is a concern that agencies will be required to invest
considerable time and resources to successfully implement and fulfill
these duties. The creation of new mandates on agencies without
commensurate funding could put them in a position where they may
violate the Economy Act. The Administration believes the costs
associated with the Commission should be readily ascertained and
transparent. Therefore, if agencies supply staff or other support, it
would be preferable to require the commission to reimburse the agencies
in order to simplify accounting of all costs.
Question. What are the Administration's current plans for a
national conference on the oceans and other activities related to the
Year of the Ocean?
Answer. This week the Administration began providing briefings to
members of Congress on the national conference and other Year of the
Ocean Activities. The range of Year of the Ocean activities is broad
and involves the efforts of more than 15 agencies and programs.
Activities are being spearheaded by the Ocean Principals Group within
the administration. NOAA has established a web page in which education
and outreach are the primary functions. NOAA will contact your office
and schedule a briefing for you or your staff to provide full details
of the conference and other Year of the Ocean activities.
clean water initiative
Question. Your budget includes an increase of $22 million for the
``Clean Water Initiative.'' $12 million of this amount goes to the
Coastal Zone Management Program.
Could you explain this part of your initiative in more detail? What
is NOAA's role versus EPA's role--are you talking about NOAA funding
planning or actual brick and mortal projects to curtail non-point
source pollution?
Answer. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
direct both NOAA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and their
respective state partners, with administration of the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program. The purpose of these funds is to provide
NOAA with the resources to support the participation of its state and
territorial partners, the 32 Federally-approved state Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) programs, in this cooperative effort to reduce
pollution to coastal waters. These funds complement the resources EPA
is providing to its partners, the state water quality agencies. Without
these resources, state CZM programs will be unable to participate in
this effort.
The $12 million will be used as follows:
--$6 million will be provided to state CZM programs for continued
development of coastal runoff control programs. These funds
will be used for two specific planning purposes. First, by
fiscal year 1999 twenty-nine CZM states will have Coastal
Nonpoint Control Programs approved with conditions. Funds will
be used by these states to take the further development actions
necessary to address these deficiencies. Second, these funds
will be used by the three states with newly approved CZM
programs (Georgia, Ohio, Texas) to begin development of their
state coastal nonpoint programs.
--$6 million will be provided to the 29 state CZM programs with
approved coastal nonpoint programs to begin the implementation
phase of these programs. These grants will allow coastal states
to implement on-the-ground management measures, and leverage
other Federal, state, and local resources, to control the flow
of polluted runoff into coastal waters. Since these funds are
requested under Sec. 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), they will be available only for planning purposes and
not the ``low cost construction'' authorities of CZMA's
Sec. 306A.
natural disaster reduction initiative [ndri]
Question. On Tuesday, Secretary Daley announced a five-year, $240
million project to help communities better prepare for and recover from
damage due to weather-related events like hurricanes, El Nino storms
and tornadoes.
What is NOAA's budget for and role in the Natural Disaster
Reduction Initiative in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. NOAA's fiscal year 1999 budget request is $55 million for
important new activities that will reduce the costs of natural hazards
as part of the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative (NDRI). Developed
through the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), this initiative is part of
the Administration's effort to apply the tools of Federal agencies
(including NOAA, EDA and National Institute of Standards and Technology
within the Department of Commerce) to save lives, reduce costs and
lower the risks of natural disasters.
NOAA's request includes funds to provide: (1) the best possible
warnings and information to prevent damage and permit escape during
hazard events; and (2) information and techniques to lower the
vulnerability and increase the resiliency of people and property before
and after hazard events. NOAA's request for each of the major fiscal
year 1999 NDRI objectives follows:
Fiscal Year 1999 Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative
[In millions of dollars]
Natural Hazard Identification and Risks and Costs Assessments..... 5.8
Sustain and Improve Predictions and Understanding of Natural
Hazards....................................................... 37.7
Application of New Technologies for Warnings and Forecasts........ 7.3
Transfer Natural Reduction Technology to Public and Private Sector 4.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total NDRI.................................................. 55.0
NOAA's role in the NDRI is critical to overall success. NOAA will
provide more accurate and timely warnings and forecasts for weather-
related and other natural disasters and provide information on the
risks and costs of natural disasters in the Nation's valuable coastal
communities, some of the areas hardest hit by natural hazards. The
requested increase will also provide techniques to mitigate the impacts
of natural hazards, measures to reduce the introduction and spread of
nonindigenuous species that threaten coastal fisheries, and research
for dealing with other coastal hazards such as harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia.
Question. What is NOAA doing to improve the understanding of
coastal hazards like hurricanes and to reduce the public costs such as
warnings, evacuations, clean up, risk evaluations, and minimizing
exposure?
Answer. The Nation's ability to prepare for natural hazards,
including severe weather events, depends on the quality and timeliness
of observations, assessments and information delivery. NOAA has made
considerable progress in recent years in the understanding and
forecasting of coastal hazards, including hurricanes, tornadoes and
flooding. New observing systems such as Doppler radar, advanced weather
satellites and high-altitude aircraft, and enhanced computing and high-
resolution modeling capabilities are central to improvements in
performance. NOAA is measuring how accurately it can predict the range
where hurricanes will reach land, given a 24-hour lead time. From
fiscal year 1994 to the performance estimate for fiscal year 1999, NOAA
expects to improve its accuracy from 185 kilometers to 135 kilometers.
The significance of earlier and more accurate hurricane warnings is
enormous. Most importantly, they help prevent deaths and injuries. But
they also reduce the costs to the public for unnecessary warnings and
evacuations, because earlier and more accurate predictions of hurricane
tracks and intensities can reduce the size of the warning areas in
which people are advised to prepare for the event. NOAA has calculated
that for each hurricane, the public's preparation and evacuation costs
exceed $50 million, but improved predictions can cut that cost by $5
million. In addition, clear and verifiable improvements in performance
lead to improvements in credibility. As the public takes more accurate
forecasts more seriously, this helps lessen loss of life and property.
NOAA is working to better characterize the risks, true costs and
vulnerability due to coastal hazards. The fiscal year 1999 request
specifically includes funds to support activities under the NDRI to
expand work with coastal states to develop coastal risk atlases and
provide new remote sensing data in a more effective manner so that
coastal communities can better prepare for and recover from natural
disasters, and assess the economic impacts of natural disasters on
coastal habitats. NOAA currently is helping to organize and sponsor
expert panels to develop a framework and methodology for community-
based risk, vulnerability, and economic cost assessment, and is
developing a community-based approach to training for state, county and
local officials in how to plan for, mitigate and support community
expansion when faced with various levels of risk and uncertainty
associated with coastal natural hazards.
NOAA is also preparing, as directed by the Congress in fiscal year
1998 appropriations report language, a collaborative research effort
with the U.S. Geological Survey dealing with the risks and economic
costs associated with coastal natural hazards. As proposed in the draft
study, three research areas are expected to be emphasized: (1) defining
the characteristics and probabilities associated with the hazards that
impact coastal areas; (2) understanding the specific impacts of hazard
events on the various natural environments that characterize the
coastline; and (3) identifying the societal impacts and related costs
of coastal hazards on the human and developed environment.
sea turtles and spending on protected species
Question. The fiscal year 1999 NOAA budget proposes to spend almost
$82 million in fiscal year 1999 on the recovery of protected species.
This is a sizable amount of money--and most of it seems to be going to
the West Coast to expand Pacific salmon recovery efforts and address
the decline of endangered monk seals and Stellar sea lions. I'd like to
remind you that we also have endangered species problems, like sea
turtles, in the Southeast. NOAA was quick to ban the use of soft turtle
excluder devices (TED's) when they suspected them of contributing to
increased turtle strandings. However, we have yet to see a Federal rule
allowing the use of a new modified soft TED developed by South Carolina
fishermen--even though field testing was completed almost nine months
ago. Shrimpers who wanted to use the new TED got a special permit under
the Endangered Species Act and were promised that the rule would be out
by January 1998. It is now March and nothing has been issued. Now the
shrimping season is rapidly approaching and the special ESA permits
expire in April.
What is the problem here? What do we need to do to get the agency
to spend just a little of its time and money to address a major problem
for the largest fishery in the United States?
Answer. Since last fall, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has been working on an interim final rule that would approve the
use of the Parker soft Turtle Excluder Device (TED) by the shrimp
industry in the Southeast. Because this rule is important to both our
environmental and shrimp industry constituents, extensive documentation
of the effectiveness of the new soft TED was prepared including
provisions for an enforcement and monitoring program. The interim final
rule to allow the use of the Parker soft TED is expected to be
published in April.
In developing a soft TED that is effective at excluding sea turtles
under commercial fishing conditions, a cooperative gear research
program with industry representatives was implemented in 1997 to try to
find a way to correct documented soft TED problems. These studies were
completed in September 1997 and resulted in one soft TED design being
identified as effective at excluding sea turtles (the Parker soft TED).
The cooperative research program, testing, training and outreach
program cost over $700,000 during fiscal year 1997. During this time,
NMFS established a liberal permitting policy to allow shrimpers
interested in testing the Parker soft TED to use it commercially. These
permits require the shrimpers to report on the soft TED's performance.
Valuable information has been gathered on the soft TED's performance
and has been used to support the interim final rule.
NOAA will spend over $750,000 this fiscal year to ensure that TED
manufacturers and shrimpers are instructed in the proper installation
and use of the Parker soft TED, to support enforcement operations, to
verify correct use, and lastly to place observers in the fishery to
document soft TED performance. This investment will provide the
information necessary to produce a final rule for the Parker soft TED
in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Near shore testing indicates that the new soft TED also
may be effective in addressing another major problem in the shrimp
fishery and that is bycatch. Why can't our shrimpers get permits under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act to test these new TED's in Federal waters as
bycatch reduction devices?
Answer. The final rule implementing Amendment 2 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (62
FR 18536; April 16, 1997): Required the use of certified bycatch
reduction devices (BRD's) in all penaeid shrimp trawls used in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the South Atlantic; announced NMFS'
certification of three BRD's for use in the South Atlantic EEZ (i.e.,
extended funnel, expanded mesh, and fisheye BRD's); and established a
framework procedure for certifying new or modified BRD's and for
establishing and modifying the BRD certification criteria and testing
protocol. To be eligible for NMFS certification, a BRD must be shown to
reduce the bycatch component of fishing mortality for Spanish mackerel
and weakfish by 50 percent, or demonstrate a 40 percent reduction in
the number of these fish. The BRD testing protocol for the
certification of BRD's for use in the South Atlantic EEZ was published
in the final rule and potential testers of BRD's were advised to obtain
the ``Bycatch Reduction Device Testing Protocol Manual,'' which
contains the testing protocol (the manual is available from the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council).
NMFS expects to publish a proposed rule shortly prescribing
additional procedures for the testing and certification of BRD's for
use in penaeid shrimp trawls in the South Atlantic EEZ. These
additional procedures are intended to foster the development of
alternative BRD's that meet the bycatch reduction criteria for Spanish
mackerel and weakfish, while minimizing inconvenience to fishermen and/
or loss of shrimp. Also, this proposed rule would implement collection-
of-information requirements associated with BRD testing and
certification that were not discussed in the proposed and final rules
for Amendment 2.
It is expected that implementation of these additional testing and
certification procedures will allow shrimpers to test the Parker TED in
the EEZ. Because the shrimp fishery in the Southeast operates primarily
in state waters where the Spanish mackerel and weakfish bycatch in
shrimp trawls is the greatest, NMFS has encouraged the testing of
Parker TED's and other BRD's in those waters. Preliminary testing
results indicate that the Parker TED has shown excellent bycatch
reduction capability for Spanish mackerel and other finish; however,
thus far it has not met the bycatch reduction criterion for weakfish.
NMFS is preparing the testing and certification protocol for BRD's
used in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ and expects to publish a proposed rule
for this protocol soon. NMFS also intends to test the Parker TED in the
Gulf of Mexico this year for its ability to reduce the bycatch of red
snapper and to determine if it would meet the BRD certification
requirements of Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management for the Shrimp
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico.
Question. Finally, the State of South Carolina and our shrimpers
have proposed a ban on night-time shrimping to protect turtles because
they sleep at night. Why has the National Marine Fisheries Service
ignored this proposal?
Answer. NMFS is preparing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
that considers regulations that would close all or some portion of
Federal and state waters off the South Atlantic states (North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) to shrimp trawling at night. The
intent of any such nighttime closure would be to reduce shrimp trawling
effort and shrimping-related sea turtle mortality. Any such nighttime
closure would also attempt to complement the existing nighttime
closures in state territorial waters, to maximize the effectiveness and
enforceability of the state and Federal closures.
Given the existing nighttime closures affecting some state waters,
an option for implementing extended closures to provide additional
protection to sea turtles would be simply to close the waters of the
Exclusive Economic Zone seaward of the currently closed state waters.
Alternatively, any nighttime closure through Endangered Species Act
rulemaking could overlap into state territorial waters, allowing
Federal law enforcement officers to provide more assistance in the
enforcement of closure violations in state waters. Again, consistency
along the coast would be desirable in any nighttime closure implemented
through Endangered Species Act rulemaking.
NMFS will conduct four public hearings on the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, one each in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida. NMFS expects the notice to be published in April.
south carolina permit
Question. On December 30, Secretary Daley issued a decision over-
riding the state of South Carolina's objection to an application by
Jessie W. Taylor to fill a wetland in Surfside Beach in order to build
a mini-warehouse. The decision differentiates between ``low'' and
``high'' value wetlands and provides for mitigation that cannot be
considered under South Carolina's Federally-approved coastal management
program.
What is the current status of this case and what are your plans for
dealing with it?
Answer. The current status of the case is that the State of South
Carolina has filed a motion for reconsideration. A decision on that
motion is awaiting a possible resolution of the issues by the parties.
However, should the parties not reach a resolution, the petitioner
would be afforded an opportunity to address the motion before a
decision on the motion will be issued.
Question. What was the factual and legal basis that allowed the
Secretary to characterize the subject wetlands as ``low value''?
Answer. In the consistency appeal process, as is the case with any
administrative appeal, the Secretary may look only at the information
contained in the administrative record. While the term ``low quality''
is not a current term of art in describing wetlands, the Secretary's
characterization was based on the information contained in the
administrative record and is detailed in the decision. As the matter is
currently before the Secretary for reconsideration, discussion of the
record is premature. However, current negotiations with the parties may
address this concern.
Question. How can the Secretary consider mitigation measures that
are explicitly prohibited from consideration in the applicable
Federally-approved coastal management program?
Answer. The consistency appeal process is a remedy provided by
Congress for those who have been stymied by state objections to their
consistency certifications. The Secretary may override a state's
objection if an appellant's project meets certain statutory criteria.
It is important to note what the consistency appeal process is not. It
is not a review of the validity of the state's objection. That is, the
Secretary, in overriding a state's objection, is not concluding that
the objection was improper under state law. The consistency appeal
process allows the Secretary to override when, notwithstanding the
validity of the state's objection, the Appellant's project meets the
objectives and purposes of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the
interest of national security. Because the Secretary is not reviewing
the state's decision but is instead looking at independent Federal
requirements under the CZMA, the Secretary is not limited to or bound
by factors that are relevant to state agencies in making their
determinations under state law.
noaa corps
Question. I raised the issue of the NOAA Corps with Secretary Daley
yesterday. Congress clearly is not going to approve the proposal to
abolish the NOAA Corps. Through attrition, you have already succeeded
in cutting over 100 positions.
Can't the Clinton Administration claim victory and allow the Corps
to start bringing in new blood? You are killing the Corps by stopping
new accessions. Pretty soon we won't be able to find pilots to fly into
hurricanes or El Nino.
Answer. NOAA management decided not to recruit new officers
initially because of the streamlining plan and continued the hiring
freeze because it was consistent with the proposed disestablishment of
the Corps.
While Congress considers the future of NOAA's uniformed service, I
have asked NOAA management to evaluate further its personnel
requirements and priorities for functions currently performed by the
NOAA Corps. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the minimum
number of staff required to operate the current fleet of NOAA's ships
and aircraft and perform related functions essential to NOAA's mission
such as hydrographic field surveys.
The evaluation will allow NOAA to better determine its total
personnel requirements for these functions and deploy the current
complement of Corps officers to the highest priority positions. If this
evaluation indicates a need for additional personnel in order to meet
NOAA requirements, we will take steps to recruit the number of people
required. We will be happy to brief you and other Members once we have
finished this analysis.
climate and global change
Question. NOAA was right on the money in predicting the El Nino
rains that have hit the West Coast this year. It has made your Climate
and Global Change program come into its own and gain public attention.
I even noticed you on Larry King discussing NOAA's program.
What are the next steps for NOAA's climate and global change
program? Where do you see the research going next?
Answer. NOAA's focused process research efforts have provided the
foundation upon which the current El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
predictive capability is based. The challenge to improve predictions of
ENSO and its teleconnections will require a continued investment in
research to understand the mechanisms which give rise to and maintain
ENSO, how and the degree to which ENSO influences climate variability
in specific regions around the globe, and how to best exploit and
present predictive information so that it will be of optimal use in
resource planning. But in attempting to improve climate predictions, we
have come to realize that several ``modes'' of variability in addition
to ENSO are interacting to influence our climate. Just as the
investment in ENSO research over the past decade led to our current,
somewhat limited, predictive capability, an accelerated research agenda
focusing on other key modes of climate variability, including the North
Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the regional
Asian-Australian and American monsoon systems, holds promise for
improving climate predictions. NOAA has the experience and proven track
record for conducting focused research to unearth and exploit
predictive signals in the climate system.
Recent events around the world, including the current El Nino and
the recent international convention on climate change in Kyoto, have
increased public awareness of global climate variability and the demand
for regionally-specific climate information. In the fiscal year 1999
budget, the President requests $2 million to expand NOAA's United
States regional assessments program. This program is designed to
translate research results on U.S. climate variability by phenomena
such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic
Oscillation, and increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases into
regionally-relevant information meaningful to decision makers and the
general public. This research is an integral component of the U.S
Global Change Research Program's regional assessment activities.
With the requested increase, NOAA will expand its regional
assessment program to include a broader geographic coverage of the
U.S., and will augment activities to strengthen the existing regional
projects and NOAA's contribution to the interagency assessment efforts.
Specifically, we will initiate programs designed to turn climate
forecast information into a form people can use in two additional
regions: the Midwest/Great Plains and the Northeast U.S. Each research
project will be designed with significant interaction with local and
regional stakeholders to: (1) analyze regional climate variability and
our ability to predict it, and create increasingly localized climatic
and hydrologic information; (2) analyze vulnerability to and
opportunities associated with climate variability, including
perceptions on the part of decision-makers in climate service sectors
about the role of climate; (3) investigate human response to climate
variability of new information, and (4) research devoted to improving
climate information by understanding how decision makers use it.
polar-orbiting weather satellite
Question. Dr. Baker, your budget proposes $65 million, an increase
of $31 million, for the next generation polar-orbit weather satellite,
which is to be a joint NOAA/Air Force spacecraft. Over the next five
years your budget includes approximately $600 million for this program.
Where do we stand on this program? Have the Air Force and NOAA reached
agreement on what sensors and capabilities the satellite would have?
What will it do that the current NOAA polar-orbiting satellite does not
do? What is the estimated unit cost for one of these satellites?
Answer. NOAA has come to agreement, not only with the Air Force,
but also with NASA, the Department, and the Office of Management and
Budget on the technical and programmatic content of the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and its
projected budgets through fiscal year 2003. NOAA and the Air Force have
agreed on the sensor types and the needed capabilities for the NPOESS
satellites. Definition of these capabilities can be found in the
``Report on Polar Convergence Operational Benefits and Cost Savings''
prepared for the House Appropriations Committee for Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies by the NPOESS Integrated
Program Office.
Beyond the current NOAA polar-orbiting satellite capabilities, the
NPOESS satellites will meet the DOD's requirements derived from the
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program which is also being
``converged'' into NPOESS. Thus, the NPOESS satellites represent the
combination of both the civil and national security requirements of the
two programs. Additional civil requirements which will be met include
increased sensitivity in moisture and temperature profiles and ozone
mapping and profiling. Additional DOD requirements, which will be met
by NPOESS, include increased imagery requirements, data availability,
and data access. In addition, the NPOESS satellites will be designed to
last nearly twice as long on-orbit as the current satellites. The
NPOESS satellite average unit cost will be approximately $400 million
to $450 million in base year 1996 dollars. The breakout of NPOESS
estimated costs is below:
Breakout of NPOESS Estimated Costs
[Base Year Fiscal Year 1996, Dollars in Millions]
Space Segment:
NPOESS.....................................................\1\ 2,192
Sensors for METOP/Mods/Spares................................. 298
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 2,490
=================================================================
________________________________________________
O&S Segment....................................................... 1,032
System Level...................................................... 423
Infrastructure/Technology Studies Phase 0......................... 379
IDP Segment....................................................... 291
Launch Segment.................................................... 235
Modifications..................................................... 196
C3 Segment........................................................ 164
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Grand Total................................................. 5,210
\1\ Line used to generate Unit Costs.
Question. The overall polar-orbiting satellite plan has called for
integration with the Europeans, and for once they are suppose to secure
and fly a polar weather satellite instead of having the U.S. taxpayers
pay for 100 percent of the service. I understand that our State
Department has been holding up an agreement that NOAA and the
Department of Defense support.
Is that correct? What is the State Department's objection?
Answer. Earlier this year the Europeans, through EUMETSAT, approved
the construction of a polar weather satellite series called METOP.
Under a proposed agreement, the METOP satellites will carry key NOAA
sensors. This will save NOAA and DOD on the order of a billion dollars
over the life of the METOP program. In accordance with the Case-
Zablocki Act, the Department of State coordinated interagency review of
the Agreement in June 1996. The USG agencies, asked by State to review
the Agreement, provided their clearance by September 1996. However,
approval of the Agreement has been held up for over a year due to an
issue between the Departments of State and Defense. DOD and NOAA
negotiated with Europe an agreement to selectively deny data to an
enemy during crisis or war while providing the data to the United
States and its allies. The State Department questions the specifics of
this agreement. The Europeans have asked that we confirm that NOAA is
authorized to sign the Agreement by April 30, 1998. We are hopeful that
the State Department clearance will be received in time to honor the
European request.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF HON. AIDA ALVAREZ, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GREGORY A. WALTER, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
JOHN GRAY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR CAPITAL ACCESS
BERNARD KULIK, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Budget request
Senator Gregg. We will reconvene the hearing to hear from
Administrator Alvarez as to the budget submission relative to
the SBA.
There are questions which have been submitted by members,
including Senator Domenici. But any other questions which come
along we will also submit in writing.
Ms. Alvarez. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Hollings, members of
the subcommittee, first of all let me say that I think that
this proposed budget is perhaps one of the strongest budgets
that we have had for the small business community. We are
requesting a total of $724.4 million, but asking for only a
modest growth of 1.16 percent in the overall resources for the
agency.
This budget will provide unprecedented levels of credit
with the request being for $11 billion program level for the
7(a) loan program, $3 billion program level for the section
504, $1.1 billion program level for the Small Business
Investment Co.
The SBA is also requesting $901 million program level for
disaster loans in 1999, which is the amount equal to the 10-
year historical average of disaster assistance. The request
also includes a $15 million initiative to support mitigation
activities, to help small businesses prepare in advance of a
disaster, which would reduce the cost should disaster strike.
As we move forward we are very focused on creating a SBA
that is prepared to help small business be successful in the
21st century, which means we are focused on the diversity of
that community, the fact that it is technologically driven and
global in scope.
In accommodating the diversity of the community, we have
focused on assisting women. We are proposing a $9 million
request for the women's business centers, which would allow us
to establish an additional 30 centers, reaching our goal of
having one Women's Business Center in every single State, which
we do not presently have.
We also feel that there is still a considerable need for
Government-sponsored business development and training.
Senator, you have been a supporter of the 7(j) program. We are
requesting $9.5 million for the business training program,
which not only assists the 8(a) companies, but we would be
expanding the 8(a) program participation to include more women
who will need assistance. We also have now newly designated
HUBZone firms, and we will need to assist them. We also feel
that these 7(j) funds should be used to support business
development on Indian reservations, and in Alaskan Native
villages, and that is really where that request comes from.
The microloan program is now permanent, and we propose to
double microloan levels from 1998 to 1999. We recognize that
there is an imbalance between the microloan dollars for loans
and the technical assistance available, and we will work with
you to find ways to bolster the technical assistance funding.
Finally, let me just say that we have given you
reprogramming letters, which we believe will help us to upgrade
our lender oversight capacity, our systems infrastructure,
which will help us maintain a lower subsidy rate, which is
where the lion's share of those reprogrammed dollars will go,
to the 7(a) program.
And I have to say that we are very proud that SBA has one
of the best financial management infrastructures in Government.
We were the only credit agency to receive an unqualified
opinion for our 1996 audit, and last week I learned that we
again received an unqualified opinion on our 1997 financial
statements.
We are looking to take the SBA to a higher level, from the
standpoint of internal controls. So we have asked for $3
million for an initiative that will make us COSO auditable,
which is a standard that the private sector aspires to. And we
think Government should, as well.
We have also asked for $1 million to implement a system for
criminal background checks for SBA borrowers. We think that
this will reduce losses in our loan program.
Basically I think this is a budget that asks for modest
increases, but with a great payoff, and will help us to prepare
small businesses for the 21st century.
prepared statement
I also want to put in a word for our nominee to be Deputy
Administrator, Fred Hochberg, who is a very successful
businessman, and would bring a wealth of experience to the SBA.
I am hopeful that Fred will get a confirmation hearing soon,
and that members will be able to support his nomination.
Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aida Alvarez
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to present the fiscal year 1999
budget for the Small Business Administration. I am very proud to
present this budget. It represents one of the strongest budgets ever
for America's small businesses with record levels proposed in all of
our major capital and credit programs and our entrepreneurial
development programs. At the same time, we are able to achieve these
record levels with only modest growth in the overall resources for the
agency. SBA is requesting a 1.16 percent increase from $716 million in
fiscal year 1998 to $724 million in fiscal year 1999.
I am particularly pleased to present the SBA budget in the context
of the President's proposal to balance the budget in fiscal year 1999.
The President's budget presents the first balanced budget in 30 years.
The last three White House Conferences on small business made balancing
the budget one of their key recommendations. The President's budget
delivers for America's small businesses.
With my remarks today, Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline my
overall objectives for the Small Business Administration, review our
accomplishments over my first year in office, and then conclude by
showing how the SBA's 1999 budget builds on these accomplishments to
prepare SBA and the small business community for the future.
preparing sba and small business for the 21st century
At the SBA, we are preparing ourselves and our small business
customers for the 21st Century. The rapid changes in our economy today
show us what the economy of tomorrow will look like. The economy in the
21st Century will be more diverse, technologically-driven, and global
in scope.
SBA is already well prepared for the 21st Century: we are serving
an increasingly diverse business population and we have set in motion a
series of initiatives to increase our service to rapidly growing
markets of women-owned and minority owned businesses.
We are at the forefront of technology, serving small businesses in
a smart sophisticated way. We are well on our way to becoming a
paperless organization. And, we are expanding our own understanding of
the global marketplace and increasing our ability to help small
businesses find opportunities in the international arena.
We must prepare for a more diverse America. By the year 2050, there
will be no racial or ethnic majorities in America. The face of small
business is already changing rapidly. Minority- and women-owned firms
are growing faster than all other firms. The census bureau found that
minority-owned firms grew at a rate of 62 percent over the 1987 to 1992
period. Women-owned firms grew at a 43 percent rate. All firms only
grew at a 26 percent rate.
I strongly believe that SBA must be at the forefront of serving
these growing yet traditionally underserved business communities.
Simply put, it makes good business sense.
SBA has already done a very good job of increasing its lending to
the more diverse American business community. Since 1992, SBA has more
than doubled its loans to African Americans from 741 loans in 1992 to
1,903 loans in 1997. Since 1992, SBA has more than doubled its loans to
Hispanic-owned firms from 1,356 loans in 1992 to 3,371 loans in 1997.
And, the SBA has increased its loans to women-owned businesses to
10,787 loans in 1997--up from 3,591 in 1992--nearly tripling our annual
volume.
It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we have achieved these
levels of growth and, at the same time, improved our credit quality.
Even while increasing our lending to these underserved communities, we
have brought down our program's cost to the government. In 1992, we
estimated that the cost the government was $4.85 for every 100 dollars
we guaranteed under the 7(a) program. Today, that cost has been reduced
to $1.39. Our record shows that we can increase minority-owned
businesses and women-owned businesses participation in our programs
without hurting program performance.
We still have much further to go in serving these underserved
communities. African Americans make up 12.6 percent of the population
and yet own only 3.6 percent of all businesses. Hispanic Americans make
up 10.3 percent of the population yet own only 5.6 percent of all
businesses. SBA wants to close the gap and increase minority and women
business ownership. We want to increase our loans to fast growing
women-owned businesses and the Asian-American business sectors. And, we
see huge needs for coordinated economic and business development
strategies on Indian reservations and in Alaskan Native villages.
SBA has launched a series of initiatives to do a better job of
serving the increasingly diverse small business community. These
initiatives include: aggressive three-year goals for the organization,
tied to performance appraisals; new partnerships with national and
local civic groups to help link good borrowers with our SBA lending
community; conversations with our lenders on best practices and the
development of new ideas that we can disseminate; and doing a better
job of linking our capital and credit programs with our vast
entrepreneurial development services.
In addition to preparing for the increasing diversity of the
American small business community, SBA is also on the forefront of
technology. We are constantly developing new on-line services to small
businesses.
Early last year, SBA announced a new Women's On-Line Business
Center. The On-Line Center is free and interactive, providing
information on business development strategies and SBA's services.
Women's On-Line is a smashing success: in just over a month of
existence, we had 60,000 visits to the site from 50 different countries
around the world. SBA has also developed a new on-line product called
Pro-Net linking 171,000 small businesses thus far with federal
contracting officers; and, an on-line network called ACE-Net that links
small firms with equity investors. Technology not only links us to
small businesses, it is essential if U.S. small businesses are to
remain competitive.
Finally, it is clear to me that in order to prepare for the 21st
Century we must help small business get ready for increasing
globalization. Already small businesses are 96 percent of all exporters
and they do 30 percent of all export sales. We are working actively
with our lenders to expand the use of our Export Working Capital
Program, with a 90 percent guarantee--and we are working to introduce a
new on-line risk management support system. We already have 19 U.S.
Export Assistance Centers.
fiscal year 1997 accomplishments
Mr. Chairman, I have just passed the one-year anniversary of my
tenure as SBA Administrator. With the help and support of this
Committee, we have accomplished much on behalf of America's small
businesses. In fact, we have had a remarkable year. We are increasing
small business access to capital and credit. In 1997, SBA provided
record levels of loan guarantees under our 7(a) general business loan
and our Section 504 economic development loan programs--$10.9 billion
in new loan approvals to more than 50,000 small business owners. Our
Small Business Investment Companies also provided record levels of
assistance to America's small businesses, with more than $2.4 billion
in venture capital financings. More than 90 percent of the investments
made by the SBIC's were in the form of equity. We are on track to
establish new records this year.
Our government contracting programs and our entrepreneurial
development programs also continue to create opportunities for small
business success. Our Office of Government Contracting supported nearly
$40 billion in federal contracts for small businesses, including more
than $10 billion for small disadvantaged businesses and $3.2 billion
for women owned businesses. I am particularly pleased that the
Administration was able to work with the Congress to increase the
overall procurement goal for small businesses from 20 percent to 23
percent. Our entrepreneurial development programs--Small Business
Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, Business Information
Centers, and our 13,000-member strong Service Corps of Retired
Executives or SCORE program--more than 1,000,000 entrepreneurs
participated in our valuable counseling, education, and training.
SBA continues its excellent work helping families and businesses
recover from disasters. In fiscal year 1997, SBA provided more than
$1.1 billion in new loan approvals to more than 50,000 borrowers. SBA
employees sacrificed their Christmas vacations to help the people of
Guam when a massive typhoon hit there. As we speak, SBA employees are
providing first-class service to displaced homeowners and business
people who have been flooded by El Nino in California, frozen in the
ice storms of New England, or had their homes torn asunder in Central
Florida. SBA disaster loans are providing a downpayment on these
families' futures.
fiscal year 1999 budget overview
The SBA 1999 budget is very good news for America's small business.
It is arguable the best SBA budget ever proposed. The budget recommends
$724.4 million for SBA programs--a modest 1.16 percent increase over
the 1998 appropriations. Yet, this budget offers small businesses
unprecedented levels of SBA-supported capital and credit and an
expansion of our education, training and counseling programs.
We are able to achieve this program growth within a modest budget
request because our loan subsidy rates are coming down partly as a
result of the excellent work done by my Chief Financial Officer, his
Deputy, and a terrific team of new analysts who have tackled the
subsidy rate challenge and enhanced our analytical capability. Improved
management of all our credit programs, coupled with a strong economy,
has allowed SBA to reduce the cost to the government of all of its
major loan programs from 1998 to 1999. The budget proposes a reduction
in the 7(a) business loan program subsidy rate from 2.14 percent in
1998 to 1.39 percent in 1999, a reduction in the SBIC Debenture program
subsidy rate from 1.94 percent in 1998 to 1.38 percent in 1999, and a
reduction in the microloan direct program subsidy rate from 10.31
percent in 1998 to 9.54 percent in 1999.
With the lower subsidy rates, we are able to increase our lending
at a lower cost to the government. We are able to do more for small
business with fewer federal resources.
increasing small business access to capital and credit
The budget proposes an appropriation of $153 million for a program
level of $11 billion for the 7(a) general business loan guarantee
program--$1.8 billion higher than this year's projected program level
and an increase of about 20 percent.
The budget also includes good news for the economic development
loan program know as Section 504. Under the SBA's proposed budget, our
certified development company partners can anticipate $3 billion in
program authority to support local community development efforts. SBA
is especially proud that we will be able to propose reductions in
program fees for the second straight year, reducing borrowing costs for
small businesses.
SBA's budget reflects a growing commitment to the now-permanent
microloan program. The microloan program supports very small loans of
less than $25,000. SBA wants to double microloan direct loan levels to
$60 million in 1999. The budget reduces the loan subsidy rate for the
microloan program from 10.31 percent in 1998 to 9.54 percent in 1999,
due to continued improved portfolio performance. In addition, $16.5
million would be available for technical assistance for microloan
borrowers.
The $1.1 billion program level requested in support for the Small
Business Investment Company program also represents a record level. The
SBIC program provides venture capital to start and grow small
businesses. The estimated 1999 program level for the SBIC program is
nearly three times the 1997 level. SBA requests $3.7 million for the
debenture program and $6.2 million for the participating security
program. This request along with carry over funds will achieve the
program level.
SBA requests $3.3 million which along with carry over funds is
projected to create a $1.7 billion level for our surety bond guaranty
program. This continues the 1998 level of support for the program.
enhancing entrepreneurial development services
SBA will continue to enhance its portfolio of service for new and
existing entrepreneurs. The fiscal year 1999 budget proposes that total
funding for SBA's counseling, training, education, and outreach
programs would increase $12 million to $121 million--an increase of 11
percent over 1998 funding levels.
The SBA has requested a significant expansion of the Women's
Business Center program. The 1999 budget proposes to more than double
funding for the program to $9 million. This funding increase will allow
the SBA to establish up to 30 new centers.
SBA's budget more than triples support for the specialized
technical and managerial assistance programs aimed at small businesses
to $9.5 million. This amount is up from $2.6 million in 1998. Through
the 7(j) program, SBA provides a variety of assistance to eligible
firms including: specialized training, professional consultant
assistance, and high-level executive development. The 7(j) resources
help SBA support the business development of firms participating in the
8(a) business development program and small businesses in areas with a
high proportion of low-income individuals and high unemployment. The
1999 budget request would support business development on Native
American reservations and in remote Alaskan Native villages, and
special assistance to disabled veterans.
The SBA budget seeks to reaffirm our critical partnerships
providing training on behalf of America's 22 million small businesses.
SBA requests $3.5 million to support our Service Corps of Retired
Executives or SCORE program with more than 13,000 volunteers
nationwide. SBA seeks $75.8 million for our Small Business Development
Center program's approximately 1,000 locations around the country. This
amount is the highest level ever requested by the Administration for
this popular program. SBA also will continue to expand the number of
Business Information Centers (BIC's) with the $500,000 requested in
1999. SBA currently supports 41 BIC's, with 20 more planned in 1998 and
6 more planned in 1999.
expanding small business access to procurement opportunities
Under the budget proposal, the SBA would take a leadership role in
meeting the federal government's goals of providing 23 percent of all
federal contracting dollars to small businesses, 7 percent of federal
contracting dollars to small disadvantaged businesses, and 5 percent of
federal contracting dollars to women-owned businesses.
SBA is especially committed to improving the federal government's
performance vis-a-vis the women's business goal of 5 percent.
Currently, federal procurement for women-owned businesses stands at
less than 2 percent. The expansion of the Women's Business Centers is
part of our strategy for meeting the women's procurement goal.
The budget includes support for expansion of Pro-Net--the on-line
service that links procurement officers with small businesses. Small
businesses can use Pro-Net to market their products and services, and
to identify procurement opportunities. Pro-Net represents a significant
new tool in the effort to meet procurement goals and to expand
procurement opportunities for small businesses with state and local
governments and the private sector. Already, 171,000 small businesses
are listed on the Pro-Net system. SBA is requesting $500,000 to expand
Pro-Net to serve even more small businesses.
SBA will continue to strengthen and improve our core small
disadvantaged business development program known as 8(a). New rules
expected shortly will create a mentor-protege program and make it
easier for small firms to affiliate and compete for larger contracts.
Our planning also includes a better linkage of 8(a) firms to the broad
spectrum of business development services and capital access
opportunities provided by SBA.
helping small businesses and families recover from disasters
SBA is committed to assisting small businesses that have been hit
by the crippling effects of disasters. The budget requests $901 million
for disaster loans in 1999--an amount equal to the 10-year historical
average level of disaster assistance. This level can be achieved with
no new appropriations, due to projected availability of carryover funds
and a reduced subsidy rate of 5.93 percent. The Administration proposes
to increase the disaster loan borrower's interest rate to the
Treasury's cost of money, capped at 6 percent. This proposal accounts
for the decrease in the disaster loan program subsidy rate from 23.46
percent in fiscal year 1998 to 5.93 percent for fiscal year 1999. Since
the program's inception, SBA has provided more than $25 billion in low-
interest loans to families and businesses.
This year's budget also proposes an important $15 million loan
initiative to support disaster mitigation activities--helping small
businesses prepare in advance for disaster events and hopefully
reducing the levels of losses and costs to the taxpayer should
disasters strike. This pre-disaster program would work in concert with
FEMA's ``Project Impact'' pre-disaster program, but target small
businesses likely to benefit from a mitigation strategy.
bringing enterprise to distressed communities
Under the budget proposal, SBA will continue to expand our One Stop
Capital Shop programs. The Agency expects to increase the number of One
Stop Capital Shops in 1998 and 1999. SBA currently operates 14 One Stop
Capital Shops. The budget requests $3.1 million for support of this
program that provides coordinated services for small business
development in distressed communities.
The budget also includes a request for $4 million for
implementation of the new procurement program for Historically
Underutilized Business Zones or HUBZones. New laws target 3 percent of
federal procurement dollars by the year 2003 to firms located in
distressed areas--both urban and rural.
leading small business participation in welfare-to-work
As the main source of most new jobs in the economy, small
businesses represent the ``work'' side of the welfare-to-work equation.
As a result of the strong economy, labor shortages are an increasing
concern for small firms. Welfare-to-work initiatives represent a
opportunity for small businesses to access work-ready employees. It is
important to emphasize that our role in the welfare-to-work initiative
is consistent with our traditional mission. We want to serve our small
business customers by providing them with good information on federal
tax credits and local services that are available if they wish to hire
people off welfare. SBA can also play an important linkage role by
giving our small business customers referrals to intermediaries who are
preparing welfare recipients for work.
transforming the sba into a 21st century leading edge financial
institution
The 1999 budget supports SBA's transformation into a 21st Century
Leading Edge Financial Institution. SBA has improved its program
management by relying more on our private sector lending partners. For
example, we have improved our processing through our preferred lender
program or PLP. Under the Preferred Lending Program, lenders make the
credit decisions and undertake all of the liquidation and servicing of
loans. SBA approves loans for guarantee in under 24 hours. PLP has been
very successful and has made a fundamental change in our business. In
1994, 16 percent of our 7(a) loans were approved through the PLP
program. Last year, more than 52 percent of our loans went through the
PLP center. We are growing our programs while the cost to the
government is going down. Approximately 400 lenders have qualified as
PLP's.
SBA will continue to devolve responsibilities to the private
sector. Beginning this year, all of our lenders will be required to
service and liquidate our 7(a) loans. And, we will, this year, begin a
program of asset sales--starting with a minimum $150 million sale in
the fall and contract-out 30 percent of our disaster home loans to a
private-sector service.
The budget includes a $12 million initiative to improve the
management and oversight of our loan portfolios and other programs
through new systems, increased analytical capacity, new risk management
approaches, and increased lender and resource partner oversight.
The budget includes a $3 million initiative to allow the SBA to
reach a standard of internal control comparable to one sought by major
private financial institutions. Accordingly, SBA is implementing an
internal controls program consistent with the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission. SBA already has one of
the best financial management infrastructures in government. We were
the only credit agency to receive an unqualified opinion on our 1996
audit. We recently have learned that SBA will achieve an unqualified
opinion on the audit of our financial statements the second straight
year. Now, SBA has embarked on a 5-year effort to reach the so-called
COSO standards. COSO represents a cutting-edge approach to internal
controls that goes beyond the accuracy of financial reporting to the
measuring of efficiency and effectiveness of internal controls. Few, if
any, private sector financial institutions now meet the high COSO
standards.
The SBA budget proposal requests $1 million to implement a system
for criminal background checks on SBA borrowers. SBA's objective is to
reduce losses in our loan programs through better detection of
applicants with disqualifying histories. At the same time, the Agency
seeks a system that will not delay the provision of credit to the vast
majority of our small business borrowers.
The budget also would provide $11.3 million for the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is a valuable, independent
organization within the SBA that provides outstanding assistance to the
Administrator and the organization's Senior Management in preventing
waste, fraud, and abuse and in furthering the efficient delivery of
SBA's programs and services.
In mentioning the OIG budget, I would like to take a moment for a
personal note. SBA lost a valuable member of our community when our
Inspector General, James F. Hoobler, passed away in December. He served
as our IG since being sworn in April of 1991. Dr. Hoobler was
extraordinarily gifted and conscientious, and his loss has been felt
throughout the SBA community.
serving as a voice for america's small businesses
SBA will continue our leadership role on behalf of America's 22
million small businesses. Within the resources proposed in this budget,
SBA will help small businesses succeed in the next century with better
information on the use of technology and with better access to
international business opportunities.
The budget requests $1.4 million for SBA's Office of Advocacy. The
Advocate provides outstanding assistance to America's small businesses
in his role promoting regulatory fairness and reducing the costs of
federal regulations, raising small business concerns in the context of
major public policy issues, and contributing to basic research on small
business issues. I want to emphasize the importance of providing a
specific funding level for the Office of Advocacy which was established
by Congress as a statutorily independent office. Separate funding is
critical to maintaining the independence of this office.
The budget includes $500,000 to support the Office of the Ombudsman
and the Regulatory Fairness Boards. Now in our second year, this
program is providing small businesses a place to raise issues and seek
redress related to the enforcement federal regulations.
other initiatives in the president's budget for small business
The President's budget includes a $1.5 billion initiative to expand
the small business provision of pension plans. The initiative will
provide a 50 percent tax credit on up to $2,000 of the first year costs
of setting up a pension plan and a 50 percent tax credit on up to
$1,000 on the cost of administering the plan. The initiative also
includes a second component known as the SMART pension plan. SMART will
provide simpler rules that will allow more small businesses to begin
defined benefit plans.
Most importantly, the President's budget addresses small business
needs for good, high quality workers. The budget includes major
workforce investments--education, job training, child care, health
care, welfare-to-work, and pensions--that will provide America's small
business community with employees who are better prepared for the job
and more focused on their work.
conclusion
The SBA's budget proposal is modest in its request for increased
resources, but far reaching in its vision for improving our services to
America's small businesses. With this budget, SBA will continue to
prepare itself and America's small businesses for the future. With
outreach to an increasingly diverse small business community, expansion
of the use of technology to deliver our services, and improved
understanding of the opportunities in the international marketplace,
SBA will show small business the way to success in the 21st Century.
Thank you for inviting me to appear here today. I will be happy to
answer any further questions that you have.
African-American loans
Senator Gregg. Thank you for that quick and concise
statement. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. You have done an outstanding job. And I
know that you have doubled the African-American loans. You have
doubled the Hispanic loans. You have tripled the loans for
women.
Now, how about even a little more. What about quadrupling
loans for the African-Americans? You know, the political polls
lie--I think back to my mother-in-law when she saw Robert
Redford. I was having a little fundraiser, and she looked at
him--noting he was shorter than she expected. She says moving
pictures lie. [Laughter.]
These political polls lie. Affirmative action is not the
cure for racism. It's the cause. Now, the solution is in your
hands. Give our African-American friends a piece of the
economic pie. Quadruple those African-American loans. That's
the way to get rid of racism.
And you can do it.
Ms. Alvarez. Well, sir, we have----
Senator Hollings. That's what you can do, really--and I
have talked to the President about it. Call up the Nation's
banks. Quadruple the loans.
You see, Lyndon Johnson, he knew. And when he took over as
Vice President under Kennedy, he organized the EEOC and had
them call up all these Defense contractors and say you've got
to give some promotions, you've got to give some contracts to
minorities.
Rather than talk about it and having meetings and crying
and whining to each other all over the countryside, just do it.
And you can. You're good. Let's start it at least in small
business. Because it's busting out all over.
And if African-Americans get a chance, small business is
where they are going to start. And then you will find that it
will all blend in and they will do fine. But right now, they
are just not having that opportunity.
And the banks, getting right to another point here, let's
talk about 7(a) loans. We are going from where we started, just
with $3 billion in 1990 when we were down, to now when we are
up, the economy is booming, and we are up to $11 billion.
You know, with 7(a) loans we might be stalling those
bankers. They might be using us rather than their own moneys. I
noticed you reduced the subsidy rate.
Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
Senator Hollings. Which is good. Don't get them too
spoiled, because if the economy goes down, we are going to need
that $11 billion, and we are going to have a hard time
providing the money here at the committee level.
Well I want to commend you. And Lenny is doing good down
there at the university for our Small Business Development
Center there.
Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
Senator Hollings. You are doing an outstanding job. But
there is one improvement I would ask for, and that is to
continue doing what you are doing, but doing a little more on
those African-American loans, in our section, at least. That
will give them a chance.
Ms. Alvarez. If I may, for a second, I agree with you, and,
in fact, very recently we announced an African-American
initiative that would actually quadruple by the year 2000 the
loans to African-Americans.
We have doubled, since 1992, and from 1997 to the year 2000
we are proposing to double that again. We think we can do it
because, frankly, right now less than 4 percent of our
portfolio is for African-Americans. We have been entering----
Senator Hollings. Less than what percent?
Ms. Alvarez. Four percent. And that's not good enough.
Senator Hollings. That's not good.
Ms. Alvarez. We have been working with the lending
community on this. We have been developing relationships with
organizations, the National Urban League, the Black Chamber,
because we think we need to use them to help us get more of
those loans through the door. So I totally agree with you.
Senator Hollings. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Native American and Alaskan issues
Senator Gregg. On that point, I don't want to see the 7(j)
program diluted into a mish mash of 20 different programs. I
think it is focused now, and it's on track. So I am concerned
about this expansion of it.
I would presume that the native American and Alaskan issue
could be addressed out of the 8(a) program. Why do we have to
use the 7(j)?
Ms. Alvarez. 7(j) does help the 8(a) firms. In many cases
we are talking about Alaskan Natives. There hasn't really been
a particular focus on Alaskan Natives and native Americans even
though we have an Office of Native American Affairs.
In fact, there are actually no funds in 8(a) to provide
business development assistance. It all comes out of 7(j). We
are going to be releasing some new regulations shortly for 8(a)
which will make the interpretation of who gets into the program
much broader.
We expect, for example, many more women who apply to get
into the 8(a) program. We have the HUBZone program, for which
we are preparing the regulations. And that will introduce all
sorts of new participants--some of whom may be 8(a) firms, but
who need this development help.
And we just feel that the native Americans and Alaskan
Natives have been overlooked, and we can use some funding to
help them.
Senator Gregg. I am sure you can. I just want to keep the
7(j) program a focused program.
Ms. Alvarez. I agree.
Senator Gregg. In the microlending area, what is the
average size of the loan in microlending?
Ms. Alvarez. About $10,000. The upper limit is $25,000, but
on average it is about $10,000.
Senator Gregg. And you are spending about $16 million on
technical assistance?
Ms. Alvarez. That is correct.
Senator Gregg. What does that involve, the technical
assistance?
Ms. Alvarez. John Gray, might want to speak to this, but
when a person receives a microloan, we would like to see about
20 percent of that loan be designated as a grant that helps
with the technical assistance.
John, do you want to address this for a second?
Mr. Gray. I am John Gray, the Associate Deputy
Administrator for Capital Access.
The way the microloan program is set up, the technical
assistance component is paid directly to the microlender, which
then provides the technical assistance to the ultimate
borrower.
Senator Gregg. By technical assistance, you mean they go
out and they help the person set up books and do things like
that?
Mr. Gray. Yes; and what is unique about this program is the
technical assistance dollars apply over the life of the loan.
So if there is a monthly problem or an annual problem, they are
right there.
Senator Gregg. What is the default rate that you are
finding? Of course you have not had this program long enough
probably to have one. But what do you see?
Mr. Gray. There is no default rate to the SBA yet. We loan
to microlenders and they have not defaulted. We do have one
problem in New Hampshire that we anticipate--but it is not
based on the microborrowers. It is a management problem of the
microlender.
The default rate is minimal from the actual microborrower.
Senator Gregg. Is that because it is so early in the
program?
Mr. Gray. No; it is actually because the microlenders
themselves have the credit responsibility, and they really
focus, because they do not want to lose their loan loss reserve
which they are required to hold. They are actually on the
ground, and very disciplined. I think that is the strength of
the program.
Senator Gregg. So your request expands it to $60 million.
You don't expect any carry over this year?
Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
Mr. Gray. We do expect some. And because it just became a
permanent program, we expect the 103 intermediaries we have
today to increase to 200. It is going to take a period of time
to properly judge and analyze the new microlenders. So we
probably will not hit the full dollar amount this year, and,
therefore, we would have carry over into 1999.
Senator Gregg. What are you seeing as a percentage of carry
over?
Mr. Gray. We actually haven't projected that just yet. I
believe that in the budget figure----
Mr. Walter. We are not projecting any carryover for the
technical assistance or direct loan program. It is in the
guarantee program that we do project a carry over.
Mr. Gray. In the guarantee, we do.
Senator Gregg. What percentage of microborrowers are
minority?
Mr. Gray. It is a higher percentage than the overall.
Senator Gregg. Of that percentage, what percentage are
women?
Mr. Gray. One hundred percent women owned, 45 percent.
Fifty-one percent women owned, 10 percent. So we always use the
100 percent owned figure, and 45 percent of our borrowers are
women.
Senator Gregg. Now, you are reducing as has been pointed
out the subsidy rate. Do you expect to get that?
Ms. Alvarez. First of all, part of the reduction will be
based on whether we can reprogram an additional $10 million,
which is in the letters that we sent to you.
When we realized last fall that we were going to have these
recoveries, we started working with the subcommittees, and at
that time $10 million was allocated to the 7(a) program. That
brought the subsidy rate down.
We then requested $18 million, and we were appropriated $8
million for this year. That further reduces the subsidy rate.
With the reprogramming for an additional $10 million we should
bring down the subsidy rate.
Greg, do you want to talk about the specifics of that?
Mr. Walter. I am Greg Walter, by the way. Deputy CFO.
The subsidy rate for this year started out at 2.19 percent
for the 7(a) program. With the $8 million appropriation for the
monitoring and oversight, and including loan performance, that
will lower the subsidy rate to 2.13 percent once the funding is
released. And then with the additional reprogramming of $10
million, that would further reduce the subsidy rate down to
2.06 percent which would, in fact, then leverage a $9.5 billion
7(a) program this year.
And the subsidy rate for next year is 1.39 percent.
Senator Gregg. How do you get to 1.39 percent?
Mr. Walter. It is a reflection of a couple of things that
have happened. One, the loans continue to perform very well. We
have seen that the purchase rate or the level of defaults
continues to decline in the program over time, and the
recoveries continue to increase. These are a result of several
factors. One, our underwriting has gotten stronger, through
stronger relationships with our lenders, and, second, on the
back end, once there is a default, we have been emphasizing the
servicing and collection of loans very much in the agency over
the last couple of years, and thus our recovery rates are going
up. So it is a combination of improved defaults, improved
recoveries, and the general management of the program that has
caused the rates to come down.
Subsidy rate
Senator Gregg. Well, in the past it has been almost a
downward event, it seems to me, the subsidy rate.
Ms. Alvarez. We have really worked hard to get that under
control. We have worked with OMB. We brought on board about 30
new people to work as financial analysts. A lot had to do, I
think, with a lack of people and expertise at our own agency.
We have also brought in outside consultants to work with us on
it. There has been a lot of investment in this.
Senator Gregg. Well, what happens if you do not reach 1.39
percent?
Mr. Walter. That rate has already been decided. That is the
administration's rate, and unless there is either a
programmatic or legislative change that would cause it to
change it will be 1.39 percent.
Senator Gregg. Do you have any more questions?
Senator Hollings. No.
Disaster program
Senator Gregg. The disaster program, you are adding 117
people to this program. Why is that?
Mr. Kulik. We add to the disaster loanmaking side as we
need people for disasters, and then we terminate them when that
need has disappeared.
Mr. Walter. The request for 117 positions is a net increase
based primarily on the level of loanmaking. The personnel level
is assumed to be higher in 1999. The 1998 level is assumed to
be $785 million, which is the 10-year average, and the 10-year
average for 1999 would be $901 million. So the assumed increase
in the program level would cause a need to hire some additional
temporary people to take care of the additional volume of
loans.
Senator Gregg. Are these permanent people, or do you get
rid of them as the loan----
Mr. Kulik. On the loan making side----
Senator Gregg. But you said they were on the servicing
side.
Mr. Kulik. They are on the loan----
Mr. Walter. On the loanmaking side.
Senator Gregg. Yes.
Mr. Walter. These are just temporary employees, and as the
demand goes up, we increase. As the demand goes down we
decrease.
Senator Gregg. When would you expect that these people
would be decreased.
Mr. Kulik. We wouldn't even put them on unless the demand
was there.
Ms. Alvarez. It is only the projection. This 10-year
historical average. Obviously there is no way to predict
exactly what is going to happen with disasters. You just base
it on a 10-year rolling average and make those projections. If
it doesn't happen, they never come on board.
Mr. Kulik. For example, we had a high of about 3,500 people
in the middle of the Northridge earthquake. Since then the
numbers, even though we have had disasters every year, sizable
ones, our number has come down to about 900.
Senator Gregg. I would like to get the last 2 years
estimates, what the projection is, and then a report every 4
months or 6 months as to how many you are retaining and how
this number is affected.
Mr. Kulik. We will do that.
Senator Gregg. Great.
[The information follows:]
Attached are three documents which outline the staff
variations, since the inception of the current organizational
structure in 1981. The compilation in Attachment A shows the
number of employees at the end of each month, broken down by
types. The cadre (cad) are permanent civil service employees,
but are guaranteed only 6 months work each year. The
temporaries (temp) are hired as and when needed and terminated
when the work demand lessens. Attachment B shows the highs and
lows of total employment during each year since 1981 and
Attachment C shows the numbers of employees at the end of each
month for 1997. Please note that these are disaster loan making
field office employees. In addition, there are 18 employees in
the central office and approximately 14 in our Denver fiscal
office that are charged to the disaster loan making function.
These employees also can be permanent, cadre or temporary
employees. The numbers for these latter offices remain fairly
constant.
ATTACHMENT A.--DISASTER FIELD PERSONNEL, 1982-98
[As of February 28, 1998]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................... 60 64 124 106 155 261 98 159 257 107 257 364 119 662 781 118 455 573
February........................................ 61 62 123 106 154 260 97 156 253 112 252 364 119 561 680 115 453 568
March........................................... 62 179 241 103 141 244 96 153 249 113 260 373 118 593 711 113 375 488
April........................................... 81 153 234 103 153 256 93 185 278 120 247 367 123 546 669 142 376 518
May............................................. 94 118 212 104 180 284 96 257 353 120 241 361 106 547 653 161 327 488
June............................................ 101 119 220 102 193 295 97 336 433 120 270 390 121 542 663 160 291 451
July............................................ 99 111 210 93 185 283 102 374 476 120 262 382 119 469 588 155 286 441
August.......................................... 103 113 216 102 174 276 107 337 444 119 246 365 113 456 569 158 244 402
September....................................... 104 104 208 100 225 325 107 308 415 117 277 394 124 478 602 160 243 403
October......................................... 102 100 202 112 191 303 107 304 411 123 362 485 118 554 672 159 256 415
November........................................ 103 94 197 97 198 295 108 313 421 122 557 679 116 523 639 159 388 547
December........................................ 105 133 238 99 173 272 108 291 399 120 664 784 115 491 606 161 371 532
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................... 158 391 549 143 133 276 99 1,411 1,510 113 533 646 155 406 561 185 1,217 1,402
February........................................ 158 388 546 139 131 270 112 1,295 1,407 126 515 641 154 403 557 186 1,160 1,346
March........................................... 156 339 495 140 127 267 114 1,050 1,164 141 479 620 153 380 533 186 1,041 1,227
April........................................... 152 282 434 134 113 247 111 854 965 137 482 619 159 365 524 182 946 1,128
May............................................. 151 154 305 131 139 270 105 854 959 136 497 633 163 436 599 181 897 1,078
June............................................ 147 127 274 128 149 277 108 802 910 143 420 563 172 541 713 182 783 965
July............................................ 138 105 243 126 174 300 110 723 833 146 394 540 172 587 759 179 968 1,147
August.......................................... 135 160 295 125 185 310 111 642 753 147 322 469 179 768 947 181 1,095 1,276
September....................................... 135 198 333 122 270 392 110 593 703 155 300 455 187 1,597 178 179 972 1,151
October......................................... 134 204 338 122 721 843 109 578 687 157 269 426 186 1,753 1,939 179 855 1,034
November........................................ 131 190 321 118 1,076 1,194 109 517 626 157 280 437 185 1,476 1,661 186 817 1,001
December........................................ 132 183 315 117 1,279 1,396 110 488 598 158 325 483 186 1,323 1,509 190 709 899
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total Cad Temp Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................... 180 1,224 1,404 221 1,969 2,190 229 1,128 1,357 244 867 1,111 245 702 947
February........................ 175 2,277 2,452 224 1,695 1,919 226 1,194 1,420 248 831 1,079 254 701 955
March........................... 184 3,094 3,278 222 1,639 1,861 219 1,065 1,284 245 1,085 1,330
April........................... 200 3,199 3,399 220 1,459 1,679 231 899 1,130 246 1,156 1,402
May............................. 195 3,333 3,528 218 1,467 1,685 234 857 1,091 247 1,025 1,272
June............................ 197 3,059 3,256 220 1,367 1,587 231 767 998 247 901 1,148
July............................ 198 3,070 3,268 232 1,257 1,489 224 802 1,026 250 808 1,058
August.......................... 208 2,711 2,919 231 1,138 1,369 239 809 1,048 250 744 995
September....................... 210 2,278 2,488 230 1,033 1,263 234 1,155 1,389 247 664 911
October......................... 211 2,309 2,520 227 1,337 1,564 245 1,161 1,406 249 617 866
November........................ 218 2,167 2,385 229 1,228 1,457 244 1,031 1,275 249 533 782
December........................ 221 2,020 2,241 230 1,030 1,260 245 764 1,009 247 569 816
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.003
Attachment B
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA05.004
Attachment C
El Nino
Senator Hollings. Is El Nino bringing in a lot more
requests? These mud slides and floods and everything else of
that kind?
Ms. Alvarez. Yes.
Mr. Kulik. It is now in California, and in Florida, and
mostly because those disasters are very widespread. It is
almost the entire State of California, and I believe three-
quarters of the State of Florida that have been declared as
disaster areas. So with the geographic spread, we have had to
have more people than in a more contained disaster.
Senator Gregg. Does the fact that the economy is doing so
well create less of a demand for SBA activity? I mean, with the
strong economy should not banks be able to make these loans
without having to have a guarantee?
Ms. Alvarez. Well, that is one theory. Actually I think
that banks have become so familiar and knowledgeable about SBA
programs, and our infrastructure has improved, and our redtape
has been decreased to the point where if banks stayed away from
SBA in the past, and didn't make loans that were legitimately
SBA loans, it is a lot easier for them now to make those loans.
I think we are talking about legitimate SBA loans that are much
easier to make, because we are operating in a more efficient
way.
Senator Gregg. Well, that has the other side of the coin
effect, which is that banks which should be taking risks on
their own are now transferring that risk to the taxpayer.
Ms. Alvarez. I have had one major bank, for example,
apologize because they said they hoped we wouldn't mind that
with some of their SBA borrowers they had discovered that they
were really pretty good risks, and so they could do this on
their own and make a profit.
Senator Gregg. I think you should encourage them to do
that.
Ms. Alvarez. That's exactly what we are encouraging.
Hopefully, we should be in the business to get out of the
business.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. OK. Well, the economy will go up and will go
down, and SBA will always be needed, I'm sure.
Anything else?
Ms. Alvarez. No, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Administration for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
government performance and results act [gpra]
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. Each of the Agency's annual performance goals links to one
of the five general strategic goals from the strategic plan which forms
the blueprint for achieving the Agency's mission. The specificity of
the performance indicator and strategy for achievement were crafted by
each SBA organizational entity, which in turn has budget narratives,
justifications, and program and financing schedules in the Agency's
fiscal year 1999 Budget submission. Finally, included in the annual
plan is a crosswalk that matches resource estimates by budget activity
and by strategic goal.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. The budget portrays resources and requests by
organizational activity and budget function. Some of these, but not
all, are the same as the program activities in the GPRA annual
performance plan. The GPRA moves agencies toward true program budgeting
and the annual plan describes goals, indicators, and strategies by
program. In preparing the performance plan, each SBA organizational
entity was asked to list discrete goals, objectives, and strategies for
fiscal year 1999 linked to the five Agency goals. Additionally, summary
descriptions of activities included in the fiscal year 1999 SBA budget
submission were also included in the annual performance plan to justify
program budgets and to create a stand-alone document. Ultimately, true
linkage of performance goals to budget activities requires a change in
the budget account structure and a cost accounting system. The Agency's
accounting structure is not activity-based and therefore does not
provide accurate resource use by specific program. SBA has requested
appropriations to update its accounting structure and will be moving to
this environment in the future.
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget? (Does each account have performance measures?)
Answer. Nearly every program and financing (P&F) schedule in the
budget has performance measures, except for the administrative
management and executive direction categories. With the assistance of
the crosswalk in the performance plan, the reader can link the budget
estimates at the general goal level.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification? (Do you plan to propose any changes to your account
structure for fiscal year 2000? Will you propose any changes to the
program activities described under that account structure?)
Answer. The account and activity structure used in the budget
matches SBA's formal organizational structure. Future plans include
closer linkage of performance planning to this structure, with
associated allocation of budgetary resources to performance measures.
Question. How were performance measures chosen? (Balance cost of
data collection and verification with the need for reliable and valid
data; inclusion of measures for which reliable data are not likely to
be available in time for your first performance report in March 2000.)
Answer. Performance data were in most cases based on existing
program data and information systems, and performance measures are
those used by line management to manage the programs. The Agency
expects that its development of Management Information Systems (MIS)
will provide a critically-needed review of data existence, quality,
relevance and reliability. Clearly, resources and training are required
to collect, analyze and disseminate valid and reliable data, such as
envisioned by our goal 2.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 annual performance plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results? For each key annual goal, indicate whether
you consider it to be an output measure or an outcome measure. State
the long-term general goal and objective from the agency Strategic Plan
to which the annual goal is linked.
Answer. There are 96 performance indicators or measures to track
program results against the five major strategic goals in fiscal year
1999. The vast majority of these are output measures and relate to one
of the five general Agency strategic goals. Under each of the general
goals in the strategic plan are 15 sub-goals or objectives, that
include (1) increasing access to capital and credit, enhancing
entrepreneurial development assistance, assisting small businesses to
sell to the federal government and create networks that improve
prospects of marketing their products; (2) becoming a leading edge,
reinvented institution that offers cost-effective, customer driven
products and services; (3) offering capital to victims of disasters;
(4) leading the work portion of the welfare-to-work initiative; and (5)
serving as a voice for small businesses to compete in the 21st century.
SBA's plan describes ways that SBA will ``create opportunities for
small businesses to succeed.'' This success can be measured in terms of
the number of new start-ups helped by SBA assistance, as well as the
number of companies expanded and maintained. This success can also be
measured in jobs created, revenues generated, and taxes paid as proxy
measures for economically successful and viable businesses. The reason
for SBA programs and products is to help small businesses succeed. As
intermediate measures, the following will be tracked: the aggregate
amount of credit and capital made available to small businesses; the
number of loans approved by underserved category of small business; the
number of businesses receiving entrepreneurial development assistance
from SBA resource partners; the percentage of Federal procurement that
goes to small businesses; the existence of an effective internal
control environment in SBA; improved delivery systems for disaster
lending; the number of commitments made by businesses to hire employees
from the welfare rolls; and improved data capacity and positive results
from regulatory agency involvement in advocacy review panels.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Where practicable, the Agency ensured that at least one
outcome measure was included in each of the major goals, e.g., jobs
created, businesses started, success rates of 8(a) firms, percent of
procurement going to small businesses, sales from Small Business
Development Companies (SBDC's) counseling, Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)-based audit criteria
used to create a leading edge internal control environment, business
commitments to hire from welfare rolls, and improved data capacity to
act as a ``voice'' for small businesses. The vast majority of the
measures selected reflect actual measures used by managers to run their
programs and measures over which they have substantial control.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance through the year on a regular basis, so
that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired results?
Answer. While the SBA has the technological capability to measure
all of its output measures, the appropriate data collection and
reporting systems have not been developed. With funds requested in
fiscal years 1998-1999 for systems modernization efforts, we hope to
address these issues by the end of fiscal year 1999.
Question. The GPRA requires that your agency's Annual Performance
Plan establish performance goals to define the level of performance to
be achieved by each program activity set forth in your budget. Many
have indicated that the present budget account structure makes it
difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and meaningful way.
Have you faced such a difficulty?
Answer. Yes. Many program performance standards and measures being
discussed within the Agency involve the capture of information not
currently maintained by the Agency. Therefore, they will add a
significant degree of complexity to assigning costs to these measures.
Additionally, the current account structure maintained by the Agency
was developed around the organizational structure of the Agency, not
its individual programs, projects and activities (PPA's). As such, some
form of crosswalk will need to be developed and maintained to bridge
between these two distinct accounting structures.
Question. Would the linkages be clear if your budget account
structure were modified?
Answer. This problem cannot be corrected by merely changing the
budget account structure. It involves the actual manner in which an
Agency manages, operates, and obligates funds. Multiple PPA's are
managed by individual offices, and the Agency has significant
administrative and overhead costs that support all PPA's. It is not
normal for a single office to administer a single PPA. As a result,
there will be a need to not only allocate direct costs to multiple
PPA's, but to also allocate administrative and overhead costs to these
PPA's in some structured and logical manner. This becomes very complex
and subjective. We have not found that this type of allocation process
exists widely in the Federal Government.
Question. If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you
believe such modifications would be useful both to your agency and to
this committee than the present structure?
Answer. We do support the development and maintenance of a system
to allocate Agency costs to the PPA level. However, those who review
such a system and its results need to fully understand its limitations
and its underlying assumptions. We also support the development of an
annual crosswalk to stratify Agency costs to the PPA's, based on a cost
allocation system. We do not, however, support the reclassification of
the Agency's budget structure to match PPA's, because this does not
reflect the manner in which the Agency manages, operates, or obligates
funds. Therefore, this would present a substantial ``disconnect''
between the external budget for Congress and the internal budget for
execution purposes.
Question. How would such modification strengthen accountability for
program performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. The development and maintenance of a cost allocation system
to allocate Agency costs to individual PPA's, coupled with performance
standards and measures, would provide managers additional information
that should be helpful in assessing the cost/benefit of providing goods
and services to its customers. This can result in efforts to make PPA's
more efficient and effective, and be used as a tool to prioritize
spending in the event of funding deviations from year to year.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the FASAB and issued by OMB, this year for the first time all federal
agencies are required to have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in that
standard, is the one known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the
full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using Activity-
Based Costing?
Answer. The SBA has just completed a preliminary cost allocation
study to allocate its fiscal year 1997 actual administrative
obligations to the major PPA's. An additional product of this effort
will be the development of detailed requirements to allow SBA to
incorporate activity-based accounting into its planned modernization of
its accounting systems. However, this modernization effort is not
currently funded within the Agency's appropriation base, and therefore,
funding for this effort is contingent on Congressional approval of
current reprogramming actions, and future budget requests for systems
funding.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. Yes. Our future plans include the integration of activity-
based accounting into our accounting and budgeting systems and
processes.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that, to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. Most programs have mature output measures and systems to
collect and validate the information. For outcome measures, derived
statistics were used and work is required before March 2000 to validate
the extrapolation and the logic. For other performance indicators, we
must establish benchmarks and baselines in the current fiscal year and
set goals for fiscal year 1999 to be measured in fiscal year 2000. The
reliability problem will be addressed through the Administrator's
monitoring of agency performance against the annual plan and through
actual use of the data in different evaluation efforts.
Most of the performance measures are output measures (e.g., number
of loans, hours counseled, courses given) which have been collected
over the years and largely under the control of the managers--therefore
they are mature. SBA is engaged in efforts to improve the relevancy of
these measures and validity of the data on which they are based. In the
annual plan, SBA has spread its overhead to the five strategic goals in
its crosswalk but has not fully allocated overhead to sub-program or
activity level. Where appropriate some performance measures were
included for administrative management (i.e., CIO and some CFO
activities were included in goal 2).
Question. Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making
estimates for certain activities or lack of data, that might affect the
accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. Current cost allocation efforts at SBA will be helpful in
assigning base costs to major program activities and establishing the
requirements necessary for systems modernization plans to provide this
type of information to managers and the Congress on a regular basis.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. The strategic plan was the first such effort at SBA and
will be revised later this year, in draft form for additional
discussions among SBA's managers, the Congress, and other stakeholders.
External comments on the strategic plan and the process of developing
the annual performance plan have highlighted several areas for
revision, such as: a better integration of Office of Advocacy and the
OIG activities in the agency's plan; more outcome measures and efforts
at attribution of causality; description of budgetary resources from
current fiscal year; expansion on mitigating external factors; more
discussion of cross-cutting efforts; and expanded discussion of
evaluation plans.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
Question. Rural communities in Alaska face high unemployment and a
remoteness unequaled anywhere else in the United States.
How effective are SBA's current programs in assisting small
businesses in rural Alaska?
Answer. With limited resources, SBA now assists small businesses in
rural Alaska in the following ways:
--Approximately twenty times per year, SBA staff from its office in
Anchorage travel to rural Alaska villages to make presentations
on SBA programs and service SBA loans. Recently, for example,
SBA staff made a four-day trip for these purposes to Galena,
Nulato and Kaltag.
--Currently, 18 of Alaska's 71 8(a) firms are located in rural areas.
Other 8(a) firms employ people in or from Alaska villages. SBA
hopes to increase the number of Alaska 8(a) firms to 100 in
fiscal year 1998.
--In April, SBA inaugurated a 7(j)-funded management education
program for disadvantaged small business executives at the
University of Alaska--Anchorage (UAA). The first class will
consist of 30 or more executives.
To spur rural economic development in Alaska, SBA is integrating
its service delivery more with private resource partners and Alaska's
Small Business Development Center (SBDC). For fiscal year 1999, SBA
seeks increased funding in the 7(j) program to help expand its delivery
of economic development services to rural communities in Alaska.
Question. What recommendations do you have on improving the ability
of the SBA to deliver services into the rural areas of Alaska?
Answer. To be more effective in this area, SBA needs to do what it
does best, emphasizing federal procurement opportunities, business
counseling and training, and improved access to capital. It must work
closely with resource partners (like Alaska's SBDC) and with rural
communities themselves. Importantly, as part of SBA's $9.5 million
request for its 7(j) program in fiscal year 1999, SBA seeks $3 million
to launch a three-year pilot aimed at helping Alaska Native, Native
American and other rural small business owners in areas with compelling
economic needs. With this funding in fiscal year 1999, SBA would do the
following:
--Provide increased executive education and federal procurement
training to rural and Alaska Native small business owners, all
in close cooperation with Alaska's SBDC, SCORE volunteers, the
University of Alaska and other resources in rural communities.
SBA recently met with Jan Fredericks, the SBDC State Director,
to discuss plans for closer cooperation with Alaska's SBDC in
reaching out to more Alaska villages and rural communities.
--Work with its private sector partners to enhance management skills
of eligible Alaska Native small business managers in business
planning, cost accounting, cash management, human resources and
other areas. For greater effectiveness, this training will be
specifically tailored to Alaska Natives. Improving the business
skills of Alaska Native small business owners will benefit
their entire communities either directly or through economic
spin-off.
--Emphasize electronic long distance learning techniques to reach
remote rural communities. With the requested funding for 7(j),
SBA would be able to award 7(j) grants to SBDC's in rural pilot
areas without a matching requirement. SBA could expand Business
Information Center (BIC) capability in areas such as Bethel,
Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau and Mat-Su Borough with improved
computer links. This would help SBA and the SBDC to counsel
rural small business owners who cannot afford extensive travel
to Anchorage.
--Explore methods to provide enhanced technical assistance to
microborrowers in rural areas, working closely with public and
private sector partners committed to the operation of
successful microlending in such communities.
SBA believes that these coordinated efforts could measurably
increase economic activity in rural Alaskan communities. With 7(j)
funding, SBA could support existing small businesses and encourage
entrepreneurs to start new ones, leading to an increase in employment
opportunities in Native villages and other rural communities. With
SBA's help, rural Alaskan small business owners would compete more
successfully for federal government contracts and would create more
jobs in their communities. This increase in jobs would have a powerful
impact on rural communities which seek to become less reliant on
welfare and more developed economically.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
women's business ownership fiscal year 1999 budget
Question. The proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 for the SBA
includes $600,000 for the National Women's Business Council. Has a
Chairperson been named by the President and when will you announce the
14 members of the Council?
Answer. The person that the President is considering for the
Chairperson of the National Women's Business Council is presently
undergoing the background check process for nominees. When this process
is concluded, I will inform you of the appointment.
As you know, I have notified you and other Senators and Members of
Congress that the decisions on the appointments of the members to the
NWBC have been completed. When the Chair appointment is completed, a
formal announcement will be made.
I'm pleased to inform you that we believe that the NWBC reflects
the support of Congress, and represents the spectrum of the small
business community, including rural, urban, geographic and ethnic
diversities of women small business owners in our country.
Question. Last year, Congress increased the annual authorization
for appropriations for the Women's Business Centers program to $8
million and, at that time, the Administration requested maintaining the
funding at $4 million. Now, one year after the authorization bill is
completed, you are recommending increasing the authorization to $9
million. Why the change of heart and what SBA program are you proposing
to cut to offset this increase?
Answer. Last year, I presented and supported the budget drawn up by
SBA's former Administrator, Phil Lader. The budget for fiscal year 1998
was the first opportunity I had as Administrator to develop my own
priorities for the Agency. Advancing the cause of the ``underserved''
is a major focus for me, and reaching out to women and assisting them
in building businesses contributes to that important goal. I hope to
soon have at least one women's business center in every state, and with
the added appropriation, build sub-centers in states with large
populations and large territory.
We do not plan to cut any program at the SBA to fund the Women's
Business Centers (WBC's).
Question. As a strong advocate of the Women's Business Centers, I
would like your views on what can be done to improve cooperation and
coordination between these centers and the nearest SBA District Office
or the Small Business Development Center?
Answer. The Office of Women's Business Ownership (OWBO) has
actually taken dramatic measures to ensure that close cooperation
exists between all our currently-funded centers, the District Offices,
SCORE and the nearest Small Business Development Centers (SBDC). The
Taskforce of Cooperation was formed last fall that explored ways to
make this happen. The Taskforce was made up of district directors,
regional administrators, WBC directors, and a representative from SBA's
Office of Field Operations. A specific list of actions and obligations
was compiled by the group that included what OWBO would do to increase
cooperation, what the WBC's would do, and what district offices would
do. That list has been made a permanent part of the funding agreements
for all new WBC's, and will be part of the contract for older WBC's
when their renewal options come up this summer. We are very pleased
that the WBC's are drawing ever closer into the SBA family of resource
partners, and expect this action will greatly help district directors
meet their women's goals.
Question. The budget request for SBA proposes awarding 30 grants
for new Women's Business Centers in fiscal year 1999. While I strongly
support expanding this program to all 50 states over time.
How would SBA manage a 3-fold increase in this program from the
level of awards in 1997?
Answer. OWBO recently hired a full time employee to replace the
contractor responsible for data collection. The duties of this position
will not only cover data collection functions but will also include
technical and programmatic responsibilities. In addition, SBA has moved
the monitoring function of the WBC's to the district offices. District
directors will henceforth appoint District Office Technical
Representatives (DOTR's) to oversee all project activities of local
WBC's. The DOTR's will be responsible for coordinating activities and
initiatives between the district offices and the WBC's. These actions
will enable the OWBO to effectively and efficiently manage a 3-fold
increase in the WBC Program.
Question. How would 30 grant awards in one year affect SBA's
ability to establish new Centers in subsequent years?
Answer. The approximately 30 new awards will be funded for 4
succeeding years. In each of those years, the oldest set of award
recipients will graduate, which will allow the following cycle of
funding: In fiscal year 2000, 15 recipients will graduate; in fiscal
year 2001, only 2 recipients will graduate; in fiscal year 2002, 10
recipients will graduate; in fiscal year 2003, 3 recipients will
graduate; in fiscal year 2004, approximately 30 recipients will
graduate--these graduates will be those first funded in fiscal year
1999. In each of those years, the number of new awards will
approximately equal the number of graduates from the preceding year.
Question. What budget would be needed to support the program in
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. If we are funded at $9 million in fiscal year 2000, the
OWBO will be able to provide ongoing funding to approximately 46 WBC's
and launch up to 12 new WBC's and sub-centers. Funding above the $9
million level would enable OWBO to provide assistance to greater
numbers of women throughout the country who want to start and expand
businesses, bringing to even higher levels the ongoing contributions of
women entrepreneurs to the economy.
Question. Does this increase ensure that adequate funds remain for
centers receiving expanded support for five years rather than the three
years first approved?
Answer. Yes, a $9 million budget is adequate to fund all the
centers for five years. If funds become available above the $9 million
level, OWBO can further expand the program to include additional WBC's
in under-served areas.
Question. In the Request for Proposals issued by the SBA to solicit
grant applications for WBC grant awards in fiscal year 1998, eligible
applicants are required to provide assistance on government
procurement/certification. The statute requires Centers to provide
assistance and training related to management, marketing and finance.
On what legal basis is the SBA now requiring new Centers to provide
``government procurement/certification assistance'' and might that
requirement be inappropriate for all applicants in remote or rural
areas?
Answer. Government contract assistance has been required since the
first Program Announcement (RFP) in 1988 which stated: ``Recipients
shall assist clients in securing Federal, state, and local government
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. Such services will
include, but not be limited to: orientation of clients in the
fundamentals of government procurement; assistance in preparation of
documents necessary for securing government contracts; advice and
guidance in preparation of routine and special reports to procuring
agencies; and assistance in implementation of appropriate compliance
procedures.''
Over the years, the request for this assistance has been refined;
the RFP in 1997 now states: ``Projects must provide training and
counseling in state or city certification of women business owners,
where applicable, and on selling to governments at the local, state and
federal level. Projects must have a plan on how to increase the number
of public and private sector contracts to women business owners. Plans
can include mentoring, training, bid and proposal preparation,
matchmaking and networking. Sites may consider having Commerce Business
Daily (the official publication announcing federal procurement
opportunities, available at many libraries) and Federal Acquisition
Regulations online for their clients. Projects must work with SBA
district offices on procurement training opportunities and
assistance.''
The OWBO expects the WBC's to be resource partners for the Agency.
Therefore, the decision to include procurement assistance in the RFP's
exists to assist women in an arena where they have historically been at
a disadvantage. Of the total federal procurement dollars, less than 2
percent goes to women-owned businesses. The Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 established a 5 percent government-wide goal
for contract awards to small women-owned businesses. One of
Administrator Aida Alvarez's major goals is to reach the 5 percent goal
by the year 2000.
Question. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 requires
that the person heading the Office of Women's Business Ownership at SBA
have the stature and qualifications attributed to the Senior Executive
service. In light of your proposal to increase the size of the primary
program overseen by this position, have you complied with the law to
ensure the head of OWBO is a member of the Senior Executive Service?
(Note: We have been advised that SBA has reached its ceiling on SES
positions, such that this requirement has not been met.)
Answer. The SBA is currently at our SES ceiling and cannot upgrade
the position without an increase in its SES ceiling from POM and in its
on-career allocation from the White House. The SBA is processing a
request for these allocations.
Question. Please explain how the $1 million requested in your
fiscal year 1999 budget for the Survey on Women Business Enterprises
relates to the $500,000 applied to this survey in fiscal year 1997, and
the $1 million you are authorized to reprogram in fiscal year 1998.
Has the cost of this survey increased from $1.5 million to $2.5
million? If so, why the increase? (Note: Last year, we were told that
the survey would cost $1.5 million.)
Answer. Collecting the women's business figures is a four year
operation undertaken by the U.S. Census Bureau. The operation began
last year, when SBA contributed the first $500,000 to the Commerce
Department in order to begin the process. The total cost spread over
four years will be approximately $3 million, according to the Census
Bureau. In fiscal year 1998, SBA will transfer $1 million to Commerce.
Costs over four years for the 1997 Survey of Women Owned
Businesses, according to the Commerce Department are:
Fiscal year 1997.............................................. $527,814
Fiscal year 1998.............................................. 991,000
Fiscal year 1999.............................................. 750,000
Fiscal year 2000.............................................. 500,000
Question. Couldn't the collection of the women business enterprise
data be combined with the information needed by the Office of
Advocacy--reducing the cost of both efforts by concurrently gathering
the information or extrapolating the women business information from
the data collected by the Census for the Office of Advocacy?
Answer. No, because the two data bases are unrelated and are used
for different purposes.
The Office of Advocacy's data base is only of firms that have
employees and has no gender identification. The data base, compiled by
the Bureau of Census, is used primarily to analyze the cost of
regulation on firms of different sizes. It is also used to study growth
year by year at the state and local level.
The SWOBE will cover all businesses headed by women, including
part-time firms with only $500 in receipts and no employees. (Eighty-
five percent of women-owned firms have no employees). The SWOBE is a
count of all activity by women, by county. It will be used to design
many of the programs for women around the country bases upon simple
counts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. Administrator Alvarez, in 1992 we allowed the SBA 7(a)
loan program to grow to $3 billion because SBA argued that during the
recession banks were unwilling to loan money and there were no other
sources of capital. In this budget before us, you have proposed an
increase to the 7(a) program to $11 billion. Since the economy is so
hot, shouldn't these banks be using their own funds instead of relying
on taxpayer subsidies? I mean, if it's a recession you tell us there
are no other sources and now in this period of prosperity, it appears
there are still no other sources. Isn't the reality that as long as
government guarantees are around, banks aren't going to risk their own
money?
Answer. Banks are, in fact, risking their own money in lending to
small businesses. Recent studies by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) Office of Advocacy indicate that small business lending has
increased substantially over the last few years. However, banks
continue to rely on the SBA loan guaranty in order to make funding
available to those who cannot get credit elsewhere. The guaranty helps
to ensure that small business and entrepreneurs have access to credit
and capital in situations where the banks perceive that there is a
greater risk than they want to take or there is a need for a greater
term than they are willing to provide.
The Agency has as one of its primary goals the improved management
of its loan portfolio in order to protect the taxpayer investment in
this important program.
Question. Administrator Alvarez, SBA runs the 7(a) program
something like an entitlement program. People come into banks and banks
keep issuing loans. As you know, last spring this resulted in a
proposal to shut down the program. Basically, we have a situation where
the program is increasing to meet demand. The good news is that to
date, the subsidy rate has been reducing due to lower interest rates
and the healthy economy, meaning fewer defaults. So now that the
program has grown from $3 billion to $11 billion, aren't you concerned
about how much will need to be appropriated if interest rates go up or
the economy stops booming?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposes an
increase in the program level for the 7(a) program. This request for
the budget authority is based on the anticipated level of demand, and
its cost is based on program subsidy rate. If interest rates increase
and if there is a resulting increase in defaults, then the subsidy rate
would also increase. This would mean that we would require a higher
level of budget authority to support the same program level. Because
there are so many unknown variables, it is impossible to precisely
predict what future requests might involve. Our goal is to help insure
that small businesses and entrepreneurs who will need the SBA loan
guarantees have the program available if and when the economy changes
direction. SBA carefully monitors demand level, subsidy rates and
lender performance, to ensure that the 7(a) program meets the needs of
America's small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Question. Administrator Alvarez, it seems like there's a game going
on with the SBA Disaster program. And it's the Congress that's getting
``gamed.'' Your submitted budget assumes that Congress will increase
interest charges to home and business owners that have been hit by
natural disasters like tornadoes and floods. However, the Small
Business Committees have refused for years to pass such legislation.
Last year, you also said that you didn't need any appropriations for
Disaster Loans, but this Subcommittee provided an appropriation of $23
million to guarantee an additional $115 million in loans. We obviously
had to cut this from other programs.
Do you have any reason to believe that the Small Business
Committees will be more supportive of changing subsidy rates and, might
I ask, did the President point out his proposal during his visits to
Florida and California to survey storm damage last week?
Answer. We hope the Committees will be supportive. If it were
practical to restore all victims to their predisaster condition at no
cost to the individual, we would favor it. But the cost to the Federal
government would be overwhelming. This proposal resulted from the need
to make hard fiscal choices. The proposal will still provide victims
with financing at rates that are not available in the commercial market
and help give them a down payment on their future.
The President did not go into detail of available Federal
assistance in his trips. Because this proposal is for disasters
commencing on or after October 1, 1998, it would have no effect on the
current disasters in Florida or California.
Question. Could you tell us what the current balances are in the
Disaster Loan fund and what you expect the shortfalls will be for the
next year if the Small Business Committees don't pass the legislation
and we provide you with your appropriation request of zero?
Answer. At the beginning of fiscal year 1998 we had $1.0228 billion
available in program funds. As of April 30, 1998 we had obligated
$419.1 million, leaving a balance of $603.7 million in program funds.
It is impossible to determine the exact need for disaster funds for the
balance of the year, however the 10 year average indicates that the
total demand for the year will be about $785 million. This would leave
carryover budget authority at the end of fiscal year 1998 of $55.8
million, In addition, it was estimated that $20 million of budget
authority would be recovered during fiscal year 1999 from loans
approved in earlier years. This would result in budget authority of
$75.8 million. The ten year average for fiscal year 1999 is estimated
at $901 million which would require budget authority of only $53.4
million, leaving a carry forward of $22.3 million for fiscal year 2000.
If the Committees do not pass the legislation, the budget authority of
$75.8 million would only support a program of $338 million. Based on
the 10 year average of $901 million, this would leave a shortfall of
approximately $125 million in budget authority.
Question. Administrator Alvarez, 8(a) has been providing business
development opportunities through federal contracts to small
disadvantaged businesses. Without access to federal contracts, many of
these small firms might not have the opportunity to grow and expand.
There are some who would end 8(a) because they are opposed to
affirmative action. What, if anything, is the SBA doing to defend this
program?
Answer. One of the most important steps that the SBA has taken to
ensure that the 8(a) program is Constitutionally defensible is
developing the SBA's proposed regulations governing 8(a) participation,
8(a) program serving and administration and entrance into the 8(a)
program by non-minority entrepreneurs.
The new rules will ease reporting burdens for participants, limit
contract concentrations, step up enforcement of competitive business
mix requirements, limit sole source contracts and encourage
partnerships between development 8(a) firms and successful business
mentors. The new rule was also written to ensure that the program is
constitutional and can stand up under legal scrutiny associated with
the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. The new regulations
broaden the participation in the program by lowering the evidentiary
standard from ``clear and convincing'' to ``preponderance of the
evidence.'' This change will enable more applicants to meet the test
and provide evidence of social disadvantage. The Agency is also
actively engaged with the Department of Justice on matters relating to
8(a) litigation. In addition, outreach efforts to explain the proposed
regulations include meeting with 8(a) constituencies, briefing Hill
staff, providing testimony and speaking to other interested parties.
Question. How do you respond to criticism that 8(a) isn't working
due to the statistic pointing to the failure of many 8(a) firms to
remain viable after their nine years in the program?
Answer. A survey of former 8(a) program participants, conducted
annually by the Office of Minority Enterprise Development indicated the
following: of those firms completing their program term over the last
three years (1994, 1995 and 1996) and responding to the survey with
business data, 42 percent remain operational; of all the firms surveyed
40 percent did not respond.
The SBA publication ``State of Small Business'' indicates that 79
percent of all new businesses cease operations within 10 years. The
former 8(a) participants at the time of the survey were in business
from approximately 11 to 14 years. The 8(a) success rate of 42 percent
for businesses with an average age of 12.5 years is 21 percent higher
than the 21 percent success rate that all businesses achieve in their
first ten years.
Question. Administrator Alvarez, I see that your request for
Women's Business Centers is up to $9 million from the $4 million
appropriated last year. The intent, I take it, is to increase the
number of centers such that every state has one.
How many states currently have Women's Business Centers?
Answer. Thirty-six plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Question. How many Centers did the $4 million buy us last year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, Office of Women's Business Ownership
opened 10 new Centers and continued to fund 18 Centers and the Online
Women's Business Center. Approximately 8 percent of the line item went
for administrative costs. In fiscal year 1998, OWBO will open a minimum
of 3 new Centers as required in the legislation and will continue
funding the 28 Centers and the Online Women's Business Center. No funds
will be used for administrative purposes.
Question. And how many more will the additional $5 million buy us
this year?
Answer. The additional $5 million for fiscal year 1999 will allow
OWBO to open approximately 30 new Centers and sub-centers.
Question. Are you finding that the increase in resources we're
giving these Women's Business Centers correlates with the dramatic
increase we're seeing in women-owned firms?
Answer. The Women's Business Centers are performing an outstanding
service. According to SBA's second report to Congress on the Women's
Centers dated February 1998 entitled Evaluation of the Women's Business
Centers of the Office of Women's Business Ownership of the U.S. Small
Business Administration, ``The Centers' achievement in establishing
effective new programs * * * in reaching out to great numbers of women
wanting help to realize entrepreneurial dreams, in actually helping a
tremendous variety of women and businesses to succeed * * * is a proud
record.'' The report also noted the following increases in service over
the previous year's report: number of clients served increased 40
percent over Year One; hours of services to clients increased 36
percent over Year One; number of small loans received by clients more
than doubled, and the total amount of dollars loaned increased by
approximately $800,000.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. Thank you. The subcommittee will stand in
recess until Tuesday at 10 a.m. when we will hear testimony
from the FBI Director.
[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Thursday, March 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
March 10.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Domenici, and McConnell.
THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
HON. DAVID HACKETT SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
JAMES C. DUFF, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DALE BOSLEY, MARSHAL
FRANK WAGNER, REPORTER OF DECISIONS
FRANK LORSON, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
TONY DONNELLY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND PERSONNEL
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. I will convene the hearing of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the
Appropriations Committee. We very much appreciate the Supreme
Court's attendance today to give us its thoughts on the budget.
I will open it up to your comments, Justices.
Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our budget is for just under $37 million, which is less
than 1 percent of the budget for article III courts as a whole.
Judge Heyburn, from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kentucky and the Administrative Office have that
presentation to make, so I think ours is simple by comparison.
We have our own budget and personnel officer. We find that
salutary, because not only does he prepare the budget, but he
presents to us ideas for shifting staff positions and making
economies at the Supreme Court. And it is as a result of that
that we have had very few increases in staff over the year.
This year our budget has a 6-percent increase for our
operating and salaries expenses, a larger increase if you count
the buildings and grounds, which the Architect of the Capitol
presents. He has a request for a $2 million study to improve
and upgrade our building, ultimately envisaging a $20 million
project over a number of years. That study is also in this
budget.
We do ask for four new positions, all of them really
technology related. We should have gone into the computer
business, I think, Senator. Those positions are detailed in our
request. One of those positions is for an Assistant Reporter of
Decisions. As you know, we are very proud of our U.S. reports.
They set a standard of quality for the whole legal world. We
have a 4-year time lag between the time we issued the opinion
and the time these came out. And our reporter, Frank Wagner,
has cut that one-half, and proposes to cut it to a commercially
reasonable 1 year by the end of our 1998 term.
We do need an Assistant Reporter of Decisions to enable him
to do that, and to enable him to do almost all the editing
before the decision is released. Now, and for all past years,
when the opinion is released, the final edit has not been done;
and we relied on attorneys and law professors to comment on
improving statutory citations, et cetera.
Now it goes on the electronic media, and it really becomes
a part of the corpus of the law right away, and so we want to
have the ability to do that editing, this is the reason for the
additional position.
We have here with us, and I would just like to introduce
the members of our court staff who are accompanying Justice
Souter and me: Jim Duff, the Administrative Assistant to the
Chief Justice; Tony Donnelly, our Budget and Personnel Officer;
Frank Lorson, our Chief Deputy Clerk; Dale Bosley, our Marshal;
and Frank Wagner, the Reporter of Decisions.
They have helped us prepare this budget. We rely much on
them and their judgment and we have very skillful professionals
with us in the court.
prepared statements
And if you have any questions, I'm sure Justice Souter and
I will be pleased to answer them.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony M. Kennedy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Justice Souter and I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee to address
the budget requirements and requests of the Supreme Court for the
fiscal year 1999.
We have with us today James Duff, Administrative Assistant to the
Chief Justice; Dale Bosley, Marshal of the Court; Frank Lorson, Chief
Deputy Clerk of the Court; and Tony Donnelly, Director of Budget and
Personnel.
As is customary, the Supreme Court's budget request is divided
between the ``Salaries and Expenses of the Court'' and ``Care of the
Building and Grounds''. For the ``Care of the Building and Grounds''
the total fiscal year 1999 budget request is $5,871,000. Mr. Alan M.
Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, will submit a separate statement to
the Subcommittee regarding that portion of the total budget.
With regard to the ``Salaries and Expenses'' portion of the Court's
budget, our total fiscal year 1999 budget estimate is $31,095,000. This
is an increase of $1,817,000, or 6 percent, over the budget authority
for 1998. Most of the increase represents base adjustments--that is,
required increases in salary and benefits costs and inflationary
increases in fixed costs. Specifically, $1,347,000 of the adjustment
represents required increases in salary and benefit costs. And $266,000
is the amount requested for inflationary increases in fixed costs,
allowing us to keep up with rising costs in all of our necessary
operations. These increases to the base are offset by a reduction of
$400,000 in this year's request, which was a non-recurring increase in
last year's budget for enhancement of the police radio system, thus
resulting in a $1.2 million increase to our budget base.
In sum, we are requesting $604,000 over base adjustments this year
to fund four additional positions and two projects that are important
to assure that the Court keeps pace with technological improvements in
automation and telecommunications.
Two of the requested positions are in the Office of Data Systems,
which is experiencing increased demands to provide the necessary
support to users of the Court's automated systems. A Senior Programmer/
Analyst is required to assist in developing new software applications.
Trouble-shooting and maintenance of existing software consume the time
of the current programming staff, leaving little time for essential
software development activities such as the redesign of the Court's
docket and financial systems. An additional Help Desk Technician is
also required to assist Court employees as they encounter difficulties
using the software and hardware already installed.
We request an additional Telecommunications Specialist to assist in
managing increasingly complex and automated telecommunications
services, including secure voice and data capability.
The addition of an Assistant Reporter of Decisions will enable the
Reporter to prepare fully the Court's bench opinions prior to the
initial release of the opinions by the Court. Currently, this extensive
preparation occurs subsequent to initial release when the cases are
made ready for publication in the United States Reports. Electronic
distribution of the Court's opinions as they are announced from the
bench has increased the likelihood that the opinions will be quoted by
both the bench and the bar before thorough, postrelease work by the
Reporter takes place.
The amount of $215,000 of the $604,000 request is to fund software
upgrades to the Court's telecommunications systems. The software, which
was installed in 1992, saves work by providing voice mail and
interactive voice applications as well as control of all telephone
traffic and features throughout the Court's fully automated
telecommunications system. Approximately 5,000-7,000 calls are handled
each month by these automated features installed in the Clerk's Office,
the Marshal's Office and the Public Information Office. The systems
need upgrading especially in view of the problems for software programs
that are anticipated with the coming of the year 2000.
The amount of $200,000 of the request is to provide funding for a
contract to remove old surplus building wire. This complex task will
require the identification and removal of old surplus phone and
computer wire in electrical closets and building conduits and the
rewiring of phone cables that are inadvertently disconnected. This work
is essential for the success of future wire installation projects.
As we mentioned in last year's request, we anticipated seeking
additional funds in the 1999 budget to enable the replacement of aging
computer hardware and technology infrastructure such as the local area
network, cabling and telecommunications. Also, we anticipated the need
for modifications to software and hardware to accommodate changes to
computer systems that must take place by the year 2000. Our predictions
have proven to be accurate. The program increases we propose this year
are directly related to the challenges of keeping up with the demands
of technology.
I emphasize again this year that we continue our efforts to make
the most efficient use of the Court's existing resources and to
minimize the need to request additional funding or personnel. Last
year, working within the existing budget base, we completely
redeveloped the Court's opinion writing system and all other personal
computer applications to take advantage of the most up-to-date computer
software technology. Also, at no additional cost to the Court's budget,
we utilized the services of specialists within the Department of
Defense and the U.S. Secret Service to study and report on an emergency
preparedness plan and overall security operations for the Court.
Despite the success of our efforts to work within the budget base,
we anticipate the need to increase the Court's budget over the next few
years to assure proper technological support for the Court's work. The
more we depend on automation to accomplish our work, it becomes
increasingly important to assure that our installed technology is
adequately maintained and updated when needed. It is also important
that the Court's employees receive the support of experts whose work in
developing software applications and training computer users will
continue to increase efficiency in the Court.
This concludes a brief summary of our request. We will be pleased
to respond to any questions that the members of the Committee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, AIA, Architect of the Capitol
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to once
again submit my statement on the budget for the Care of the Building
and Grounds of the Supreme Court. As you may recall, I officially
assumed my duties as Architect of the Capitol on February 3, 1997.
During the past year, I have been immersed in learning and evaluating
the complexities of this agency and the responsibilities of this
position.
I would like to take a brief moment to describe the present role of
the agency. For the Legislative Branch, the Office of the Architect of
the Capitol (AOC) is the agency responsible for the structural and
mechanical care, maintenance, cleaning, and operation of the buildings
and facilities supporting the Congress, including the Capitol Power
Plant. This responsibility extends to the Botanic Garden, the
structural and mechanical care and maintenance of the Library of
Congress Buildings and Grounds. This office also undertakes the design
and construction of new facilities and alterations of existing
facilities.
As you know, for the Judiciary Branch, the Architect of the
Capitol, by authority of the Act of May 7, 1934, is responsible for the
structural and mechanical care of the United States Supreme Court
Building and Grounds, and this is the reason for my statement in
support of the funding requests. We are not charged with responsibility
for custodial care, which is under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of
the Supreme Court and is provided for in the Court's salaries and
expenses appropriation.
The budget request for the care of the building and grounds for
fiscal year 1999 that I present begins on page 1.19 of the Supreme
Court justification and amounts to $5,871,000. The request represents
an increase of $2,471,000 over the fiscal year 1998 appropriation of
$3,400,000. Included in this amount is a decrease of $381,000 to the
budget base and an increase of $2,852,000 in program and capital budget
items.
The adjustments to the base are costs that support ongoing
operations and maintenance, including compensation. The net decrease of
$381,000 in base adjustments is comprised of an increase of $100,000
for mandated pay and benefits costs, increases totaling $44,000 in
costs of utilities, services, supplies, and equipment; and decreases
from the fiscal year 1998 level totaling $525,000 for nonrecurring
projects.
Once again the budget includes a five-year capital budget plan.
Increases totaling $2,852,000 are requested for six capital budget
items in fiscal year 1999. The capital budget is a relatively new
concept for the Office of the Architect having been presented for the
first time with the fiscal year 1998 budget.
The fiscal year 1999 capital budget request that I submit is
grounded in a comprehensive and systematic agency-wide planning effort
with in-depth involvement by the Supreme Court. A total of 13 capital
projects are identified for the Supreme Court building and grounds for
the five-year period beginning in fiscal year 1999, requiring an
estimated total funding level of $30.9 million over five years.
The bulk of that amount, $22.2 million, is attributed to a project
to provide an overall building improvements and systems upgrade, the
first such comprehensive project planned for the building since its
construction in 1934. The estimates and planning for this project are
in the very early stages. The current fiscal year appropriation
includes $225,000 for a study on this project for the preparation of a
schematic design package to determine the scope and preliminary cost
estimates for this project. The fiscal year 1999 budget request
contains a request in the amount of $2 million to provide for the
design phase which will take approximately two years.
Other very important factors that enter into projects of this
magnitude are detailed decisions relating to overall scope of the
project, construction schedules and milestones, and the potential need
and cost for phased relocation of the Justices and staffs during
construction.
Another important project for the Court that will be advancing to
the design stage is the perimeter security enhancement project, which
is currently estimated at $5.3 million. A preliminary study provided by
funds in fiscal year 1997 is being completed to provide the preliminary
design and cost estimates for this project. In fiscal year 1999, an
amount of $500,000 is requested for detailed design development and
preparation of construction drawings. The design will be developed in a
manner consistent with design schemes being implemented throughout the
complex of the U.S. Capitol.
The projects included in this capital budget reflect the needs that
have been identified to date for the Court's building and grounds. I
intend to continually evaluate and update the needs to ensure that the
capital budget is responsive to programmatic changes, the condition of
the building and systems, and any other needs that may arise.
The five-year capital budget that is presented establishes a multi-
year funding plan that describes the magnitude of cost to upgrade and
maintain the Court building infrastructure in proper operating
condition. The capital budget also identifies improvements that respond
to accessibility standards and guidelines for the disabled. Balancing
the needs of maintaining the existing infrastructure while keeping pace
with technological enhancements and program needs is costly. We are all
also aware of the effect that technological pressures can have on aging
building systems, especially from the perspective of being capable of
delivering new telecommunications technologies.
It is important to note that these requirements do not simply
disappear if deferred. If projects requested for fiscal year 1999 are
deferred, the costs to accomplish them will rise due to added
deterioration, increased maintenance costs to sustain the systems in
the interim, inflation, and fluctuations in market conditions. The
deferred projects also will then add to the fiscal year 2000 funding
need, which has already been estimated at $5.1 million.
In last year's statement, I detailed many of the reasons that there
was such a large increase in the funding level required for the
maintenance of the building infrastructure. Rather than repeat those
reasons, I will highlight them here:
--Replacement of Aging Building Systems.--The Supreme Court building
is reaching an age and condition that requires major renovation
and replacement of building systems.
--Technological Advances.--Technology, especially in
telecommunications, is changing far more rapidly than the
existing building infrastructures can support and adapt to.
--Regulatory Compliance Requirements.--Programs essential for the
Architect of the Capitol to comply with environmental and
hazardous material protection have received very high priority
in terms of advancing the timetables for completion.
--Security.--Terrorist activity throughout the world has increased,
and as a result there is a heightened sensitivity toward
threats to security at the Capitol complex.
I assure the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee that I will
work closely with you and the Subcommittee staff, as well as the Court,
between now and the time the Subcommittee marks up this portion of the
appropriations bill to achieve a rational and adequate funding level to
support the needs of the Court.
I would like to conclude with an observation related to the capital
budget request. I readily acknowledge that the amount requested appears
to be large, and given the current pressures to maintain a balanced
Federal budget it will be extremely difficult to meet these needs. It
is important that this Subcommittee and the Congress realize, however,
that these projects are clearly necessary to properly conserve the
Supreme Court building for future generations. The need for funding
these projects will continue.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I shall be pleased to
respond to any questions that you and the Subcommittee may have.
Domestic spending freeze
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Justice Kennedy. Senator
Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the
appropriated accounts for domestic spending being so tight this
year, frankly we are going to be almost at a freeze for the
composite of domestic discretionary programs. As a consequence,
I ask wherever I appear if the people submitting requests would
give us an ancillary document which would indicate their
highest budget priorities.
I think yours is a small enough budget that it is easy to
discern. There is not much more than what you just testified.
Perhaps on the bigger issue, my question will be what are your
highest priorities. I do not mean that for today, but to be
submitted at a later day.
Justice Kennedy. These are the real experts, of course,
behind us, on the budget of the courts overall. The
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts runs a very tight
ship.
It is interesting: we have foreign visitors who come to the
Supreme Court, chief justices from other countries, and they
are very pleased to meet with us as a courtesy. But what they
really want to do is go to the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, and Ralph Mecham, our excellent director, always
gives them a good reception when they come. And they are always
very impressed with the skill and the sophistication of our
judicial administration. And over the years, when we have had
what, about a 14-percent increase in the last 10 years in
district court filings, but we have basically lived within
budget. We have effected some very substantial cost savings in
bankruptcy proceedings and so forth. Our court tries to mirror
their good example.
Security needs
Senator Gregg. Well, you always seem to run a very tight
ship, and I want to make sure we support you adequately,
especially on the security needs, where you are upgrading your
security. We are a little concerned that that seems to be going
slowly rather than quickly. I would think you would want to
move it along a little faster, but we will be there with funds
to support you.
Justice Kennedy. We will talk to our staff about that.
Senator Gregg. I did notice that Justice Souter said in
response to putting TV in the court that it would be over his
dead body.
Justice Souter. If you would like me to say that again--
[laughter.]
Senator Gregg. I was just going to say, I had already
received some calls from some prisoners in New Hampshire who
remember Justice Souter, and were hoping we would put the TV
money in our bill.
I do not have any other questions. We do appreciate your
time. We thank you for coming, and if you have any further
comments you wish to make, we would welcome them.
Justice Kennedy. Thank you. We appreciate the fact that you
and your staff look at our budget separately. It is a good
exercise for us, and we also appreciate over the years the fact
that the Congress as a whole, including this honorable body,
have funded the staff and personnel and resources of the court
at such adequate levels. We continue to do our work, and we
think we are doing it the way we ought to.
Senator Gregg. Great. Thank you very much. Nice to see you.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I just add my
accolades?
Senator Gregg. Certainly.
Additional committee questions
Senator Domenici. I believe the Supreme Court manages its
affairs in an admirable manner, and I'm here to support them,
as you are, and certainly to make sure you are adequately
protected. Thank you for the way you presented this piece of
the budget. It is very understandable, very simple, and very
forthright. Thank you.
Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much, sir.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Supreme Court for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
police radio system enhancements
Question. Last year this subcommittee gave you $400,000 to apply
towards police radio system enhancements identified by a study to be
conducted by March 1, 1998. It's my understanding that this study has
been completed by Motorola and you are prepared to go forward with
Phase I of your enhancements. How confident are you that Phase I will
only cost you $400,000?
Answer. Since the Court submitted a copy of the study to the
Subcommittee Chairmen and staff on February 27, 1998, Motorola
submitted an itemized proposal for $397,000 to enhance the Court's
existing Supreme Court Police radio system to the standards requested.
We are confident that this proposal is thorough and accurate.
Question. What will this $400,000 buy you?
Answer. As stated in the cover letter to Chairman Gregg and
detailed in Motorola's Rough Order of Magnitude Proposal, this
enhancement will provide: improved communications coverage in the
greater Washington Metropolitan area, to include Justices' residences
and major airports; compatibility and interoperability with federal,
state and local law enforcement authorities (``PMARS''); increased
reliability; automated roaming; improved Console operations for
managing communications; superior encryption; and application of
standards-based technology to broaden the choice of sources for
emerging digital communications technologies.
Question. Do you anticipate needing additional funds after
completing Phase I? Will Phase I bring you up to speed with the narrow
band width requirements?
Answer. The Court asked Motorola to develop its proposal not only
to meet the Court's currently stated requirements but also in
anticipation that further geographic expansion will be required. It is
difficult to predict how much further expansion will be required and
whether additional funds will be needed, but much will depend on the
scope of geographic coverage then considered desirable and what kind of
protective security requirements will then be in place. Phase I
satisfies requirements for the conversion of all Federal law
enforcement radio communications systems to narrow band width by 2005.
Motorola's existing proposal will enable the Supreme Court Police to
communicate with all federal, state and local counterparts during the
narrow band transition period. The equipment identified is capable of
operating in both pre- and post-2005 system configurations.
technology needs
Question. I've been told that your total program increase of
$604,000 is primarily in response to the rapid advancements in
technology and the effect that trend has had on the Court and its
operations. I imagine you're now faced with the task of putting
decisions on-line as soon as they're handed down, for example. Could
you identify for the committee what needs the Court has identified with
respect to technological developments and how that is reflected in your
budget?
Answer. The Supreme Court's Office of Data Systems provides the
development, operation, maintenance, and support of automated
information systems for the Court. The Data Systems staff operate and
administer a Hewlett Packard minicomputer, install and maintain
approximately 250 personal computers (PC's) throughout the Court, and
administer a complex local area network which connects PC's throughout
the building. The Court's technology infrastructure is a complex
mixture of Court-wide computer software applications, individual office
systems, and off-the-shelf software products. Computer applications
track the docketing of cases, assist in the production of Court
Opinions, and support research of legal issues and questions related to
matters before the Court. Automated networks facilitate the flow of
information within the Court and allow electronic dissemination of
information to outside entities as well as access by the Court staff to
external databases. Automated systems are an essential part of the
operation of the Court.
The specific needs identified as increases to the Court's budget
relate to properly maintaining and updating the Court's existing
software systems and hardware infrastructure as well as providing Court
employees the highest level of training and support in developing
software applications. Two additions to staff in the Office of Data
Systems, a Senior Programmer/Analyst and a Help Desk Technician, will
enhance improved software development activities and provide more
assistance to Court employees who encounter difficulties using
installed software and hardware. An additional Telecommunications
Specialist will improve management of complex automated
telecommunications services, including secure voice and data
capability.
The Court's opinions are now distributed electronically as they are
announced from the bench. Full and extensive preparation of the
opinions for publication occurs subsequent to the initial release when
the cases are made ready for publication in the United States Reports.
The addition of an Assistant Reporter of Decisions will enable the
Reporter to prepare fully the Court's bench opinions prior to the
initial release of the opinions by the Court.
The Court has requested funding for two projects that will enable
the Court to remain current with technological improvements in
automation and telecommunications. Software upgrades projected to cost
$215,000 are required for the Court's telecommunications systems. These
improvements are necessary especially in view of the year 2000 problem
for software programs. The fully automated telecommunications system
includes software installed in 1992 that saves work by providing voice
mail and interactive voice applications as well as control of all
telephone traffic and features. Approximately 5,000-7,000 calls are
handled each month by automated features installed in the Clerk's
Office, the Marshal's Office and the Public Information Office.
$200,000 has been requested for a contract to identify and remove old
surplus phone and computer wire in electrical closets and building
conduits, and to rewire phone and data cables that are inadvertently
disconnected during the project.
U.S. Courts
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN G. HEYBURN II, CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
introduction
Senator Gregg. Well, we are now joined by Judge Heyburn,
and also Senator McConnell, and so I will yield to Senator
McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to stop by
and welcome my old friend, John Heyburn, to town. He is, as the
members of the subcommittee know, the Chairman of the Budget
Committee for the Judiciary, and a fine lawyer. We have labored
in the vineyards together in various ways over the years.
I am personally aware of his legal skills, because in my
previous incarnation as the county executive in my home county,
John was one of our lawyers, and did a fine job, and has been
on the Federal bench since 1992.
So I just wanted to come by and welcome him to the
committee and insert his impressive resume in the record, if I
could, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We would be happy to do that. It is an
impressive resume.
[The information follows:]
Biographical Sketch of John Gilpin Heyburn II
John Gilpin Heyburn II was born November 12, 1948, the son
of Henry R. Heyburn and Frances Starks Heyburn. Both his
grandfather and father were attorneys and civil leaders in
Louisville, Kentucky.
Judge Heyburn received his early education in the
Louisville Public schools and graduated from Milton Academy,
Milton, Massachusetts. In 1970 he received his A.B. degree from
Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he majored in
history, received seven varsity letters for participation in
cross country and track and was named to the All-Ivy League
cross country team.
Shortly after graduating from Harvard, Judge Heyburn worked
for the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Tom Emberton, as a
scheduler and advance man. Prior to entering law school, Judge
Heyburn worked for a number of public service institutions,
including the Park Duvalle Neighborhood Health Center, the
Louisville and Jefferson County Youth Commission and the
University of Louisville Urban Study Center, all of which
focused upon the problems of urban areas. During that time
Judge Heyburn conceived and organized a summer tutorial program
serving hundreds of disadvantaged Louisville youth.
In 1976, Judge Heyburn received his J.D. degree from the
University of Kentucky College of Law, where he was a member of
the school's National Moot Court Team. While in law school,
Judge Heyburn served as a director of Kentucky Citizens for
Judicial Improvement, which promoted reform of Kentucky's
judicial system by a constitutional amendment in 1976. He also
served as an officer in the United States Army Reserves.
From 1976 until his appointment to the bench, Judge Heyburn
was associated with the law firm of Brown, Todd & Heyburn,
which at the time of his departure numbered approximately 120
attorneys. He was a partner at the firm from 1982 through 1992.
Judge Heyburn's practice focused on commercial litigation, with
a particular interest in construction contract litigation, a
subject upon which he has written and spoken extensively.
Between 1977 and 1981 Judge Heyburn also served as special
counsel to then Jefferson County Judge Executive Mitch
McConnell. In 1981 and again in 1982, he served as legal
counsel for two successive citizen commissions established to
draft a new governmental charter for Louisville and Jefferson
County. Judge Heyburn was active in each charter campaign as a
spokesperson and strategist.
Judge Heyburn served as a director of the Louisville Bar
Foundation and as chairman of the continuing legal education
programs for the 1991 Kentucky Bar Association Annual
Convention. He also served as President of the University of
Kentucky College of Law Alumni Association and as a member of
its Visiting Committee.
Judge Heyburn was active in civic and political affairs in
Kentucky. Among other things, he served as a delegate to the
1984 and 1988 Republican National Conventions. In civil
affairs, Judge Heyburn served as director of numerous
charitable and public service institutions. From 1983 through
1986, he served by joint appointment of the Mayor and County
Judge Executive as Chair of the Louisville and Jefferson County
Crime Commission. Judge Heyburn was a member of the Leadership
Louisville Class of 1991.
On March 20, 1992, President Bush nominated Judge Heyburn
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky to succeed the Honorable Thomas A. Ballantine, Jr. His
nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate on August
14, 1992, and he took the oath of office on August 28, 1992.
In 1994, the Chief Justice appointed Judge Heyburn to serve
on the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the
United States. In January 1997, the Chief Justice appointed
Judge Heyburn as Chairman of the Budget Committee. He also
serves on the Standing Committee for the Sixth Circuit Judicial
Conference.
Judge Heyburn is married to the former Martha Blackledge
Keeney, who is an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon. They have
two sons ages 6 and 9.
opening statement
Senator Gregg. We are happy to have you with us. You know,
Senator McConnell is one of our leaders.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator McConnell.
We yield to your thoughts and ideas, Judge Heyburn, on what
we should do relative to the budget of the court system.
Judge Heyburn. Thank you very much.
It is a distinct pleasure and privilege for me to represent
the judiciary, and maybe appropriately enough as we have a son
of New Hampshire staring down on you and one from Kentucky
staring down upon me, here in this historic room. [Referring to
pictures of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster on the hearing room
walls.]
It is a great honor for me to appear before you today. And
it never ceases to remind me of the majesty and delicacy of our
Constitution, and the way it operates day to day as the two of
us from different branches meet.
Madison said that justice was the purpose of civil society,
and, indeed, the purpose of Government. The Congress plays a
part in creating justice, and the Founders created the judicial
branch for the very purpose of doing that.
I come representing that branch, one that in our system
actually depends for the resources to do that job upon another
branch. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, do understand these
relationships, and we from the judicial branch see that in the
day-to-day operations and dealings with you and your staff. And
I want to say at the outset that we very much appreciate the
cooperative attitude that they bring to the budget process, and
we certainly think it has helped us in giving you the kind of
information that you need.
First of all, I want to thank the committee for the
appropriation that we received last year, and as a more
tangible expression of that appreciate, on behalf of the third
branch I want to promise our continued careful stewardship of
those funds.
I am pleased to say that our budget request for this year
envisions a 6.7-percent increase in obligations. This is the
lowest increase, essentially, that anyone can remember. So I
think we are making progress.
Our job is, in essence, law enforcement. The work that we
have to do is continuing to increase by and large. The purpose
of our budget is to ask for the limited funds that are
necessary to do that job, and nothing more.
We are trying to be more efficient. We have an Economy
Subcommittee that is pursuing many avenues to make sure that
the funds that you give us are used carefully and efficiently.
I do want to thank the committee for your efforts to help
us be more efficient. I think you deserve much of the credit,
or we can share the credit for some of the things that we have
done. Several years ago, for instance, Congress passed the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, and we can see quite
dramatically that that has had an effect in reducing the number
of frivolous prisoner lawsuits, and partly as a result of that,
in the fiscal year 1999 budget we are asking actually for fewer
clerks at the district court level.
And it is traceable to a decline in the caseload in the
district courts, a small decline, and we think that much of
that is related to the prisoner litigation. So it shows that
the things that you do can affect our work, and affect our
ability to do it more efficiently.
Last year, as you probably recall, we had an extended
conversation about defender costs, and how the program was
being run. I want to compliment you and your staff for bringing
up that issue. It helped us focus our attention on some things
that need to be looked into.
As a direct result of our discussions and as a direct
result of your legislation, we contracted with Coopers &
Lybrand to do an independent study. They came up with some
interesting findings, which I think are, on the whole, highly
positive to the way we have been running the program, but we
did learn a lot of things about why the costs are increasing
where they are.
The study did highlight a few areas--well, one area, I
should say, that we are continuing to work in, and I would be
glad to discuss that study with you during the questions, if
you like.
Another area we discussed briefly last year was courthouse
security. The costs had, I think as you may well have pointed
out last year, increased dramatically in fiscal year 1997 and
1998--about 20 percent each year. This year I am happy to say
we are only requesting a 6.9-percent increase, and all of that
is due to new or renovated facilities--or the great percentage
of that is new and renovated facilities. In response to your
questions, and the questions of Congressmen over in the House,
we are continuing to look at security. We all wrestle with the
question of how much security is enough security.
We want our courthouses to be safe places for people to
feel safe, for jurors to feel comfortable going there, for
citizens to feel comfortable going there, and we are continuing
to try to strike the proper balance. We do not want to scrimp
on security. On the other hand, we do not want to overdo it,
and we are continuing to look at that.
I also want to thank the committee and the Senate and in
particular you for your actions on the COLA for judges last
year. We believe that both Members of Congress and judges
should be treated like other Federal employees, and receive a
small appropriate COLA every year. And we think it ought to be
in the fiscal year 1999 budget.
I think in reflecting upon last year, and upon the
experience of most working Americans, they are used to
receiving a COLA every year in their own every day lives. And I
think my reflection as an amateur politician at this point is
that the reaction, or rather lack of reaction, to what Congress
did last year proves that they understand that these things are
appropriate.
As Congress intended a number of years ago when the
legislation was passed that put in motion this process, we
ought to keep that process in motion every year, and then we
will not be faced with larger increases to catch up.
I would like to make a couple of quick points about two
smaller accounts within the judiciary that are important to us.
One is the Administrative Office, which is the heart of the
judiciary's policy and administrative support. We are going to
be implementing a number of new automation programs over the
next couple of years. The support we get from the
Administrative Office is absolutely critical. The work Ralph
Mecham and his staff do is critical to our efforts to be more
efficient.
The Federal Judicial Center is also asking for only a 3.1-
percent increase this year. They have been basically flatlined
the last 5 years, and I would encourage you to give them the
funding they need to continue to provide education to the
judiciary.
I will mention one other brief matter, and that is we are
requesting some language in the legislation which would
authorize the judiciary to establish certifying officers as
sort of a technical financial point. We hope you will include
that in the legislation somewhere. It will enable us to better
deal with our financial management at a local court level.
prepared statements
I will be submitting my written testimony along with that
of Judge Zobel, and Director Mecham, and representatives of the
Federal circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade for
the record.
Again, it is a great pleasure to be here. I will be glad to
answer any questions or discuss any subject that you would
like.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John G. Heyburn II
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you on the Judiciary's 1999 budget
request. It is indeed a pleasure to return for my second appearance
before the Subcommittee.
On behalf of the entire Judiciary, I want to thank you Mr.
Chairman, Senator Hollings, and all the Members of the Subcommittee for
your extraordinary efforts in providing the Third Branch with our
fiscal year 1998 appropriation. In this time of fiscal constraint, we
greatly appreciate your support for the judiciary. The funds you
provided, together with other available sources of funding has
permitted us to handle our known workload increases and will ensure the
effective functioning of the court system. I also want to express my
appreciation, on behalf of all the judges in the judiciary, for your
role in providing a pay adjustment for judges in 1998, and especially
to you Mr. Chairman, for your leadership efforts, which have been
recognized throughout the judiciary. We hope this process will repeat
itself in 1999.
Finally, I want to express my deep personal gratitude to you, Mr.
Chairman, the Subcommittee, and your dedicated, hardworking staff for
your support and willingness to work with me during my first year as
Chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget. The
Subcommittee has been extremely responsive to our needs, and the staff
demonstrates a high level of professionalism and always listens with an
open mind.
restrained budget request
We are pleased to be able to report to you today that the $4.1
billion in obligational authority requested by the judiciary for fiscal
year 1999 continues the trend in restrained budgets begun by my
predecessor, Judge Richard Arnold. For the third year in a row we have
succeeded in reducing the level of growth in both appropriated funds
and total obligations. In fact, the 6.7 percent requested increase in
total obligations represents the lowest such increase in 20 years.
If I were sitting in your position, I might ask how can the
judiciary talk about reducing costs when its budget is increasing by
6.7 percent? My response would be that you have to look at this with a
historical perspective, and you must take into consideration the nature
of, and just as importantly, the continued growth in the work required
of the courts. Reducing costs does not mean reducing our overall
budget. What it does mean is that our economy and efficiency efforts
allow us to provide the level of service expected by the bench, the bar
and the public, and I might add by the Congress, but at a curtailed
cost.
This restrained request comes in spite of a growing workload being
placed on the courts. With the exception of civil filings which decline
slightly, the workload estimates used to develop the fiscal year 1999
budget continue to grow.
The requested growth for fiscal year 1999 includes only those funds
necessary to continue our current workload (offset by efficiency and
other savings), and to handle workload created by the additional
responsibilities Congress has given us. The 6.7 percent increase in
overall spending in fiscal year 1999 breaks down to 5 percent for
current services (maintaining staffing, and funding for inflation, pay
adjustments, and other costs related to existing workload) and 1.7
percent to maintain a current level of service for the aforementioned
workload increases which are not controlled by the judiciary.
We believe this is a very restrained request considering the
resources that have recently been provided to the Justice Department by
Congress, and our continued growth in workload. A good indicator of the
increased workload we can expect from DOJ is the level of resources
provided to the Department. In fiscal year 1998 the number of attorneys
in the litigating divisions and U.S. attorneys offices grows by six
percent. The number of FBI, DEA and INS agents and investigators grows
by seven percent in fiscal year 1998. We can expect additional workload
in fiscal year 1999 as a result of the efforts of these new
investigators and litigators hired in fiscal year 1998.
A detailed explanation of our fiscal year 1999 request is included
as an Appendix.
judiciary's contribution to balancing the budget
My colleagues here and out in the courts are grateful to the
Congress and especially to this subcommittee for providing the
resources needed to meet our constitutional and statutory requirements.
At the same time we recognize a requirement you have to balance the
budget. In the past this subcommittee has encouraged us to do more with
less and your admonishments were heard loud and clear throughout the
courts.
To illustrate this, just four years ago we submitted a fiscal year
1996 budget request that amounted to an 8.5 percent increase in
obligations over the previous year. That budget was based upon
additional workload such as a 3.7 percent increase in offenders under
supervision, a 6 percent increase in bankruptcy filings, and a 4.3
percent increase in criminal and civil filings. As I discussed earlier,
for fiscal year 1999 we continue to experience a growing workload, and
yet we have succeeded in paring down our budget. The requested 6.7
percent increase in fiscal year 1999 amounts to a reduction of 21
percent from the 8.5 percent increase requested in fiscal year 1996. In
short, we have succeeded in lowering significantly our rate of growth
in funds at a time when there is no lessening in our rate of growth in
workload.
The Congress has done an incredible job in achieving what was once
considered an impossible goal--the balancing of the federal budget. I
like to think that we in the judiciary, through our cost cutting
efforts, have assisted you in attaining this goal. We have come a long
way and, as I discuss below, we will continue to seek ways to enhance
our productivity and reduce our cost of doing business, as long as it
does not compromise the quality of justice. Providing a forum for our
citizens to address their grievances is not an inexpensive proposition,
but I believe the judiciary is on the right track.
Following are examples in three areas of our budget where we have
been able to achieve savings.
Staffing
The number of judges and court employees needed is directly linked
to the judiciary's workload. With workload that is not controlled by
the judiciary, but is placed upon the courts year after year, the
demand for additional judges and staff continues to increase. Cognizant
of continuing budget constraints, we sought ways to ensure the wise and
more cost-effective use of our human resources.
The judiciary has implemented cost-conscious policies to address
the need to establish or eliminate Article III, bankruptcy, and
magistrate judgeships, and to appoint or transfer judges in those
positions. Some of these initiatives include determining whether a
judgeship should remain unfilled or should be recommended for
elimination if the workload warrants it and considering the use of
visiting judges before requesting additional judgeships.
To hold down the number of court personnel needed, a multi-year
effort is underway to identify business practices that have the
potential to result in more efficient and effective operations and to
foster their implementation in the courts. This effort has the
potential to enhance the courts' ability to function at curtailed
staffing levels.
Space and Facilities
Containing the costs of court facilities remains a high priority
for the judiciary. Areas that the judiciary continues to pursue include
the sharing of courtrooms by senior judges, the possible closing of
additional facilities without a resident judge, implementation of a
space reduction incentive program, revisions to the U.S. Courts Design
Guide to reduce building construction costs, and the possible sharing
of facilities with state and local governments or other entities to
reduce costs.
Public Safety
The judiciary takes very seriously its law enforcement
responsibilities as administered through the probation and pretrial
services programs. Public safety should not be jeopardized in the
interest of saving money. The judiciary, however, has been able to
manage this program in a way that produces savings while still ensuring
public safety. Through its home confinement program, the judiciary
saves the government considerable resources when compared with the
alternative of incarceration. Further, offenders in the electronic
monitoring component pay for nearly half the cost of that program.
Another public safety component for which the judiciary receives
funding is the court security program. The funds are appropriated to
the judiciary, and then transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service, which
has statutory responsibility for the provision of security to the
judiciary. Funds pay for court security officers and security systems
and equipment. Under the policy guidance of the Judicial Conference,
the U.S. Marshals Service has developed standards on the appropriate
number of court security officers and pieces of screening equipment
needed in each facility. The fiscal year 1999 request for additional
court security officers provides for the safety of all individuals in
court facilities in the most cost-effective manner.
containing defender services costs
The judiciary not only is attempting to contain costs in the
courts, but also in other areas of the budget such as the Defender
Services Program. I need not remind Congress that providing an
individual a fair trial and an adequate defense is a critical component
of this nation's criminal justice system. Congress has recognized this
and has provided adequate resources to allow the judiciary to meet its
obligations. Congress has, over the past several years, raised concerns
about increases in the overall average annual cost per representation
that exceeded the rate of inflation.
In February, we transmitted to Congress the results of a
comprehensive analysis of the cost of the Defender Services Program by
an independent consultant, Coopers and Lybrand, L.L.P. This report was
developed in consultation with the General Accounting Office. The main
finding in the report is that overall average costs in this program are
being skewed by a relatively new phenomenon in the federal system,
federal death penalty prosecutions. Coopers and Lybrand found that when
the cost of death penalty representations, especially a handful of very
expensive high profile capital cases, are excluded, the average annual
cost of the remaining cases grows by a rate roughly equivalent to
inflation. In fact, Coopers and Lybrand went one step further and
stated that the cost increases for these non-capital cases ``have been
reasonable''. The reasonableness of non-capital prosecution costs can
best be illustrated by the attached chart which displays the average
annual panel attorney cost per representation by case type from fiscal
year 1995 through fiscal year 1999. The flat line at the bottom of the
chart indicates how little the average annual cost per representation
has grown in non-capital cases. Since non-capital cases make up
approximately 99 percent of the total number of defender
representations, I believe it is safe to assume that the costs of the
Defender Services Program are ``under control''.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA12.000
The aforementioned chart also illustrates the differential between
the average annual cost of capital and non-capital cases, and shows the
impact high profile death penalty prosecutions have on average annual
costs. In fiscal year 1997, at the height of several of these high
profile cases, the average annual cost per representation for all
capital prosecutions was $154,000. These high profile cases have
concluded the trial phase and we are unaware that any similar cases are
being considered by the Justice Department. Consequently, we predict
that the average annual cost per representation in a capital
prosecution in fiscal year 1999 will decline by over 50 percent from
fiscal year 1998 levels to $75,000.
For fiscal year 1999, we request what I believe to be a reasonable
budget of $391,831,000, an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 1998
funding. The growth above fiscal year 1998 results primarily from: (1)
a projected 4.2 percent increase in the overall number of
representations, (2) standard pay and inflationary increases, and (3) a
$5 increase in hourly panel attorney rates for non-capital cases.
Panel attorney hourly rates have become somewhat problematic for
us. As you know, we rely to a great extent upon private panel attorneys
to provide representation for federal defendants. Since 1986, the
hourly rates used to reimburse these attorneys for their services have
been increased once, in 1996, by $5. In 1986, the In-Court hourly rate
was $60. If this rate had been adjusted annually for inflation (CPI),
the rate in 1997 would have been $88. The rate today is only $65, or 26
percent below the inflationary adjusted rate. Concerns have been raised
about the quality of the services being provided by panel attorneys who
are being paid at an hourly rate which in most areas may not even cover
overhead. Rate increases are needed to provide the financial incentive
to develop and maintain panels with the federal criminal practice
experience needed to provide quality representation.
a fair and independent judiciary
Although managing the judiciary's resources efficiently is a
primary concern, ensuring that this nation has a fair and independent
system of justice is of the utmost importance. This country is one of
the few that has an independent judiciary. It is part of what makes
this country great, and it touches all of our lives, but it does come
with a price.
The judiciary provides a variety of services for this country and
its citizens. It protects the public by providing a forum for those
accused of crimes to be removed from society if found guilty. It has a
law enforcement function by monitoring the activities of individuals
accused of crimes and awaiting trial, or convicted of crimes and
sentenced to terms of probation or supervised release. Through the
bankruptcy system, the judiciary contributes to a stable economy by
providing a mechanism for debtors and creditors to resolve financial
problems in a way that they can continue with their businesses and
their lives. Through the civil litigation system, businesses or
individuals who have disputes with each other can seek resolution in
the federal courts. Finally, the Judiciary permits those accused of
crimes to have access to a fair trial by providing counsel to those
unable to afford it.
The judiciary cannot prevent anyone from seeking its services. It
cannot deny justice and it cannot control its workload. What the
judiciary must do is identify the necessary resources to remain
independent and dispense justice fairly, and to utilize those resources
efficiently and responsibly.
preparing for the next century
The judiciary is not only ensuring that our founding fathers' goals
of a fair and independent justice system are met, but it is also
looking to how it can best meet those goals in the new century.
Foremost in our effort is to ensure that we have the most modern
and efficient information systems in place to dispense justice fairly.
These automation and technology initiatives are being explored as
potential ways to improving justice at reduced costs while still
handling a growing workload.
The electronic courtroom is a vision of the not-too-distant future.
The judiciary is currently studying the use of emerging technologies in
appellate, district, and bankruptcy proceedings. These technologies
include video conferencing (beyond its use in prisoner proceedings),
video evidence presentation systems, electronic court-reporting methods
(e.g., real-time stenography), and courtroom access to a variety of
office automation applications and databases. A report assessing the
advantages and disadvantages of using these technologies is scheduled
to be completed this summer.
Expansion of videoconferencing for judicial proceedings and
administrative purposes is also expected to continue. More districts
will be using videoconferencing for prisoner related proceedings and it
is anticipated to become a widely used medium for meetings,
conferences, and training seminars. Videoconferencing produces a number
of benefits--more efficient scheduling for judges and court staff,
enhanced access to the court for the bar and public, reduced security
risks when prisoners do not have to travel to appear for proceedings,
and in some cases lower travel costs. A satellite broadcasting
capability for the Judiciary is to be deployed in the next few months
which will provide more economical training programs to broader
audiences.
The judiciary now makes available a variety of publications and
other information to the public through the Internet. In addition to
enabling faster response times, this reduces postage, printing and
staff costs involved with responding to inquiries by mail or telephone.
Significant efficiencies have also been realized through the
establishment of an intranet site and its use is expected to expand.
The judiciary continues to explore the benefits that may be
associated with receiving case filings using electronic methods. These
efforts are seeking more efficient case management systems to support
judicial officers. A number of side benefits such as electronic filing,
retrieval, and information sharing between courts, the bar, and the
public will result from this work. The judiciary is working to resolve
a host of technical, management, legal, procedural, and security issues
involved with moving towards an electronic case management system.
contributions of the administrative office
All of the judiciary's achievements and efforts that I have
mentioned so far and all of the other work of the judiciary would not
happen were it not for the support of the Administrative Office (AO)
staff.
The projects underway to utilize resources more effectively in the
area of staffing and facilities, to manage the cost-saving home
confinement and electronic monitoring contracts, to manage drug testing
contracts, to analyze the use of defender services and court security
resources, and to prepare the judiciary for the next century through
initiatives such as facilitating the installation of satellite
downlinks needed for video technology are all spearheaded by
Administrative Office staff in support of the courts.
All of the above efforts and many more are in addition to the daily
support the Administrative Office provides to the courts and the
Judicial Conference. Some of these include:
--Researching and preparing analysis on hundreds of issues considered
by Judicial Conference committees each year.
--Providing core administrative services such as accounting,
personnel, payroll, budget, and facilities planning.
--Developing better ways to handle court business and training and
assisting judges and court personnel in implementing programs,
improving operations, and managing the courts.
--Supporting the Judicial Conference's planning efforts by conducting
strategic studies and providing technical assistance, research,
and analysis related to planning issues and topics.
--Preparing manuals and publications containing essential information
about judicial business.
--Providing management and organizational training to court staff on
how to operate most efficiently.
I urge that the Congress fully fund the $5 million (5.6 percent)
increase requested for the AO in 1999. This level of growth funds pay
adjustments and inflationary increases and allows staffing to be
restored to the 1995 authorized level. Over the past four years total
judiciary FTE have increased by 15 percent. Not only has AO staffing
not kept pace with the population they serve, it actually declined from
fiscal year 1995 to 1997 by 4 percent. This has prevented the AO from
providing both the support needed by the courts in core functions, but
also to implement new systems. Automated systems that support
financial, personnel, defender services, and court security activities,
among others, will greatly improve the efficiency of the judiciary and
bring it into the twenty-first century. Some of these systems are being
implemented now and others will be in fiscal year 1999. Automating
critical tasks and implementing the system to do so will require
extensive AO support to the courts. The fiscal year 1999 request for
the AO will provide the resources to support these new systems and
still allow the AO to maintain an adequate level of support for its
other core activities.
federal judicial center support
Please let me also comment briefly on the Federal Judicial Center,
which is seeking a 5.6 percent increase over its current appropriation.
I know that the Chief Justice and the Board of the Center reviewed this
proposed request carefully in light of the demands on the Center and
the real and effective reductions in its funding in the last few years.
The Board believes, and I believe, that it is a very reasonable
submission and I urge full funding at the requested level.
This subcommittee has made clear that it wants the judiciary to
spend less for travel for education and has called for the use of video
technology to provide more education to the judges and staff of the
Federal judiciary at increasingly lower costs. The Center has
responded, as explained in Judge Zobel's statement, and has already
broadcast nine programs, reaching over 7,000 people.
As noted in Judge Zobel's statement, the Center has long used
alternatives to traditional travel-based education. The great majority
of the people it trains receive education in the courthouses using
Center materials. As a working judge, I can tell you as well that the
services the Center provides are vital in enabling us and our staffs to
work efficiently. The Center orients new judges to their jobs, and all
of us turn to it for updates on legislative and case law, for help in
managing difficult criminal and civil cases, and more efficient juror
selection. The Center teaches our probation and pretrial services
officers how to supervise defendants effectively and to help judges
determine the appropriate sentences. Its management training programs
teach court staff the tools used in the private sector to reduce costs,
streamline operations, and better serve the public.
conclusion
In closing, let me emphasize the critical and unique services the
judiciary provides to our society and our efforts to provide these
services in the most cost-effective way possible.
We recognize the importance of achieving a balanced budget and want
to continue to work with you to achieve and maintain that goal. The
judiciary takes seriously its responsibility to use resources
prudently, as it does its responsibility to provide a fair and
independent justice system. We believe we are achieving both of these
goals.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you
today, and we are available to provide any additional information you
may need.
______
Appendix
summary
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation request for the Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services totals
$3,616,903,000, an increase of $328,426,000 over our fiscal year 1998
appropriation level. In addition to appropriated funds, the judiciary
requires the use of other funding sources to supplement our
appropriations. Included in these sources of funding are fee
collections, carry forward of fee balances from a prior year, and the
use of no-year funds. When all sources of funds are considered, the
increase in obligations for fiscal year 1999 is only $242,856,000 or
6.7 percent.
Of the $243 million increase in obligations 75 percent ($181
million) is necessary to maintain current services by providing for
inflation and other uncontrollable adjustments such as existing judges
and staff. The remaining 25 percent ($61 million) is primarily needed
to respond to increasing workload. The request for the principal
programs are summarized below.
salaries and expenses
The salaries and expenses of circuit, district, and bankruptcy
courts and probation and pretrial services offices account for most of
our request. A total of $3,247,895,000 is required for this activity,
$200 million over fiscal year 1998 estimated obligations. Funding
totaling $299 million is expected to be available from other sources to
offset the S&E requirements, leaving an appropriation need of
$2,948,723,000. Included in these other sources of funding are $135
million in funds expected to carry forward from fiscal year 1998; $134
million in fee collections; $27 million from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund; and $2.5 million from the Vaccine Injury Trust
Fund.
Over 78 percent of the $200 million increase ($157 million) is
needed to fund uncontrollable adjustments such as inflation, the
filling of vacant judgeships and additional space rental costs. The
increase in space rental costs reflects inflation, the annualization of
new space delivered in fiscal year 1998, the delivery of new space in
fiscal year 1999 and a security surcharge the General Services
Administration (GSA) is applying to its customers. Rental payments to
GSA are estimated to increase over 13 percent from $574 million in
fiscal year 1998 to $650 million in fiscal year 1999 and make up almost
half of the requested adjustments to base.
The remaining increase ($43.4 million) will primarily fund the
personnel needed to address increases in our uncontrollable workload.
The increases fund the following:
Judges.--An increase of $3.2 million is requested for 7 new
magistrate judges and related support staff. This increase is needed to
provide an effective, yet less costly, way of providing help to Article
III judges to handle the large volume of civil and criminal cases
facing the courts. An increase of $1.2 million is also requested for 4
additional recalled bankruptcy judges and their related staff. Recalled
bankruptcy judges provide an effective way for districts to deal with
mushrooming bankruptcy workload until it is determined whether
additional bankruptcy judgeships should be approved.
Additional Court Support Personnel.--Funding is requested for
additional FTE for appellate and bankruptcy courts and for probation
and pretrial offices while FTE in district courts will decrease.
Bankruptcy and appellate filings have continued to grow over the past
several years, while workload is anticipated to decrease in district
courts because of a reduction in civil filings and the sunset of the
Civil Justice Reform Act. In the probation area, the number of
offenders received for supervision will continue to increase, but more
significant is the shift from relatively low-risk probation cases to
high-risk violent offenders on supervised release. Consequently, an
increase of $23.6 million will fund 427 additional clerk's office FTE
and related expenses and $15.4 million will fund 195 additional FTE in
probation and pretrial offices.
defender services
A total of $391,831,000 is requested for the Defender Services
program to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants in
fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, $360,952,000 is requested in direct
appropriations and $30,879,000 is requested as a reimbursement from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The total requirements for fiscal
year 1999 are $28,964,000 over the fiscal year 1998 projected
obligations of $362,867,000.
Most of the increase ($27,764,000) is needed for uncontrollable
adjustments, such as pay and benefit adjustments, inflation, increased
space rental costs and a projected increase in caseload. Included in
these adjustments are funds for 71 additional FTE for Federal Defender
Organizations to provide representation to 2,300 additional defendants
as well as a net reduction of $2.5 million in panel attorney costs.
While there is a projected overall increase of 1,600 panel attorney
representations for fiscal year 1999, costs of this activity are offset
by a significant decrease in projected Federal death penalty
requirements due to the disposition of several expensive cases. Also
included in the requested adjustments is a $5 per in-court and out-of-
court hour rate adjustment for private panel attorneys in those
districts which do not receive the $75 per hour compensation rate.
Panel attorney rates in 77 of the 94 districts, while raised in 1996
for the first time since 1984, are still an impediment to our ability
to attract qualified attorneys to serve as court-appointed counsel.
The remaining increase ($1.2 million) would fund the start up costs
of four new federal defender organizations. The Congress and the
Judicial Conference have urged us to establish more federal defender
organizations as an alternative to using panel attorneys in districts
where this would be appropriate.
fees of jurors and commissioners
For the Fees of Jurors program, a total of $70,087,000 is required,
of which $68,173,000 is requested in direct appropriations, $1,426,000
is requested as a reimbursement from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund and $488,000 is expected to be available in carry forward balances
from fiscal year 1998. The total requirements for fiscal year 1999 are
$2.2 million higher than estimated fiscal year 1998 obligations ($67.9
million). This increase funds inflationary adjustments and an increase
in juror days.
court security
For the Court Security program, a total of $179,524,000 is
required, of which $179,055,000 is requested in direct appropriations
and $469,000 is requested as a reimbursement from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund. This is an $11.6 million increase over estimated
fiscal year 1998 obligations ($167.9 million). This request reflects an
overall net reduction in funding required for adjustments to base
(-$4.7 million) including: inflation; costs associated with a wage
labor rate increase for court security officers (CSO); funding to
annualize the costs for 387 new court security officers brought on in
fiscal year 1998; and a reduction for non-recurring equipment and CSO
start-up costs acquired in fiscal year 1998.
The remaining increase of $16.4 million funds 168 additional court
security officers which will provide for the basic security necessary
in existing (78), new and renovated (90) facilities housing full-time
judicial officers. In addition, funds are provided for cyclical
replacement of weapons and explosives screening and systems equipment.
violent crime reduction trust fund
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime
Bill) established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The Crime
Bill and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
authorize funds to be appropriated from the fund to the judiciary to
finance the expenses associated with implementing these acts. Of the
$60 million authorized for the judiciary in fiscal year 1999: (1) $27.1
million would reimburse Salaries and Expenses costs; (2) $30.9 million
would reimburse the Defender Services account; (3) $1.4 million would
reimburse the Fees of Jurors account; (4) $469,000 would reimburse the
Court Security account; and (5) $100,000 would reimburse the activities
of the Federal Judicial Center.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rya W. Zobel, Director, Federal Judicial
Center
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members. My name is Rya Zobel. I am a
United States District Judge and have been the Director of the Federal
Judicial Center since 1995.
The Center is the federal courts' agency for education of judges
and supporting staff and for analysis and evaluation of judicial
procedures and case management. This appropriations request has been
endorsed by the Center's Board, which the Chief Justice chairs. It has
been coordinated with the Administrative Office and with the Judicial
Conference's Budget Committee, whose chairman, Judge Heyburn, will
speak for the Center today. I am available to answer any questions you
may have of me. I am pleased that Judge Heyburn joins me in seeking
full funding for the Center.
The Center's fiscal 1999 appropriations request of $18,470,000
represents an increase of 5.6 percent, or $945,000, over our fiscal
1998 appropriation, which is the same as our fiscal 1997 appropriation.
The request for fiscal 1999 is about the same as our 1994 appropriation
and a half-million dollars less than was available to us in 1992.
Of the requested increase, over two-thirds is for standard base
adjustments--$642,000.
We are requesting program growth of only $333,000, for 4 video and
media positions and small recurring funds for distance education
equipment. With these four additional positions, the Center's staffing
strength will be 144 FTE's, more than 10 percent below what it was
before I became director in 1995.
Congress has emphasized that judicial branch education should rely
less on travel and use satellite video broadcasts as an inexpensive
alternative. Permit me three points:
First, Congress' interest in non-travel based education has long
been the Center's interest, well before satellite broadcasts were
feasible. As long as ten years ago, over half of the 10,000
participants in our training participated in their courthouses. That
percentage last fiscal year was 85 percent even as the number of
participants in our training had grown to 34,000. Corresponding figures
for the calendar year are higher.
Second, the amount the Center spends on travel has declined
dramatically--the Center's estimated fiscal 1998 travel expenditures
will be about one-third or $1.5 million less than we spent in 1995.
Third, the Center has led the judicial branch's distance education
efforts. The Chief Justice, in his year end report, noted that the
Center Board had approved a strategic plan for the Center and that the
plan responds to Congress's interest in reducing government spending on
travel by directing the FJC to continue its emphasis on satellite
broadcasting and other forms of ``distance learning.'' More
specifically:
--In 1996, we used over a half-million dollars of our travel funds to
construct a second video studio specifically for instructional
broadcasts; additional funds came from the Sentencing
Commission and the courts' budget. We inaugurated that studio
last month with a program for probation officers on supervising
violent offenders.
--To save taxpayers' dollars, we have cooperated with Executive
Branch agencies to learn the best methods for use of
instructional studios such as the one we built, and we have
been active in government-wide efforts to promote distance
learning. A member of the Center staff was recently elected
government sector vice-president of the Federal Government
Distance Learning Association.
--In 1996 we assessed the federal courts' receptivity to having
satellite downlinks on the courthouse. We are grateful to the
Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office for
allocating both the funds and the management resources to
establish a network of downlinks that will be operating in
federal courts later this year.
--We have already provided court personnel instruction on how to use
these downlinks once installed, and are prepared with a regular
schedule of educational programs for this cost-effective medium
to commence as soon as the courts' downlinks are in place.
--Using other downlinks, we have already broadcast 9 satellite
education programs to over 7,000 court personnel, on topics
from how probation officers should deal with street gangs to
the decisions of the Supreme Court in its 1996-97 term.
--In addition to satellite broadcasts, we have introduced the
judicial branch to educational audio conferences and on-line
computer conferences, and presented 32 since 1996.
These methods join other distance education techniques we also use.
For example, within four months after the Judicial Conference's March
1997 approval of a ``Risk Prediction Index'', the Center produced an
interactive, multi-media, non-travel based educational program to teach
probation officers how to use this new tool. Center researchers had
developed the Index to help officers determine the amount of
supervision that individual federal offenders require.
The Center Board endorsed the request before you today, not because
it will provide all the resources that the Board believes the Center
needs. Rather, the Board believes this request will provide the minimum
resources necessary to allow the Center to continue to provide federal
judges and court staff the practical training they need in order to do
their jobs recognizing the continued need to control spending,
including spending for travel.
I thank the subcommittee again for its support. I will be glad to
answer any questions you might have about our fiscal 1999 request or
about the Center and its missions.
______
Prepared Statement of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 1999 budget
request for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO).
To start with, I wish to thank Chairman Gregg, Mr. Hollings, the other
Members of the Subcommittee, and your staff for your continued support
of the AO. In fiscal year 1998, Congress provided the AO with the funds
necessary to partially restore our staffing levels, which had declined
by 4.3 percent between fiscal years 1995 and 1997. We were very pleased
that you recognized the need to strengthen AO support of the courts,
and I am eager to tell you how we have used these resources to improve
the administration of the judiciary. Our modest request for fiscal year
1999 will allow us to restore AO staffing back to fiscal year 1995
levels.
The AO's policy and support responsibilities touch on all aspects
of operations in the Third Branch. No other federal agency has the far-
reaching responsibilities for the workings of an entire branch of
government as does the AO for the judiciary. Its many responsibilities
put the AO in a unique position to effect change throughout an entire
branch of government. The AO met this challenge by identifying and
implementing improvements that help the courts work better, at less
cost. Through our efforts, the judiciary is better able to contribute
to the national goals of winning the war against crime, enforcing the
rights of all citizens, and eliminating the budget deficit.
responsibilities of the administrative office
Chief Justice Rehnquist addressed the responsibilities of the AO in
his fiscal year 1997 annual report on the courts. In that report he
stated that the AO ``serves the Judicial Conference of the United
States and the federal courts in many ways.'' For example, ``it
collects data and analyzes statistics, consults with the courts about
their needs and priorities, makes improvements in judicial
administration, and implements and promotes Judicial Conference
policies and programs.'' To provide an idea of the magnitude and scope
of the effort required, consider that the AO is involved in supporting
the following:
--The Judicial Conference and its 24 committees, which establish
policy for the federal judiciary.
--Over 2,000 judicial officers--including active and senior appellate
and district court judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate
judges--an increase of 11 percent over the past four years.
--26,326 court staff FTE, an increase of 15 percent over the past
four years.
--About 128,300 individuals under the supervision of probation and
pretrial services officers, an increase of 12 percent over the
last four years.
--3,274 court security officer positions, an increase of 45 percent
over the past four years.
--27 million square feet of space, a 14 percent increase in square
footage over the past four years.
Chief Justice Rehnquist relies upon me, as the Chief Administrative
Officer of the federal courts, to ensure that the AO provides support
for these and other aspects of the judiciary. On a daily basis, AO
activities include:
--Implementing the policies of the Judicial Conference and supporting
its network of committees by providing staff to plan meetings;
develop agendas; prepare reports; and provide substantive
analytical support to the development of issues, projects, and
recommendations.
--Providing centralized core administrative services for the courts
such as payroll, personnel, and accounting services.
--Developing and executing the budget and providing funds to the
courts for local budget execution.
--Defining resource requirements through forecasts of caseloads,
work-measurement analyses, assessment of program changes, and
reviews of individual court requirements.
--Conducting education and training programs on court administrative
functions.
--Auditing the courts' financial operations.
--Managing national contracts for drug-testing of those under
supervision by probation and pretrial services officers.
--Developing and supporting automated systems and technologies used
throughout the courts.
--Coordinating with the General Services Administration and the
courts on the construction and management of the judiciary's
space and facilities.
--Monitoring the U.S. Marshals Service's implementation of the
Judicial Facilities Security Program, which provides court
security officers and security equipment for courthouses.
--Managing appointed counsel programs funded through the judiciary's
Defender Services appropriation.
--Responding to numerous inquiries from Congress, the media, and the
public.
--Providing a variety of services to the courts designed to increase
their overall effectiveness, including the delivery of
operation manuals and the conduct of court reviews.
administrative office funding
The AO is requesting total funding of $94,082,000, a 5.6 percent
increase over expected fiscal year 1998 obligations. This modest level
of growth is less than the increase requested for the rest of the
judiciary (6.7 percent), which is supported by the AO. The budget
request includes only inflationary increases and the funds necessary to
restore staffing and services to 1995 levels. The total funding needed
is comprised of appropriations, reimbursements from the courts
primarily for automation support, fiscal year 1999 fee collections,
prior year carryover, and independent counsel reimbursements.
Over three-fourths of the requested increase for fiscal year 1999
is for salary and benefit inflationary cost adjustments. Personnel
costs account for about 90 percent of the AO budget, so this is not
surprising. The remainder of the requested increase is for an
additional 11 FTE to restore staffing and related services back to the
fiscal year 1995 authorized level. As described below, restoration to
the fiscal year 1995 staffing level is critical to the ability of the
AO to continue providing necessary support to the entire judiciary.
The AO was fortunate, due to your leadership, to receive a 5.2
percent increase in appropriations for fiscal year 1998. This will
allow us to increase staffing levels by 12 FTE. In the following
section, I discuss how these additional staff will be used to enhance
ongoing efforts to improve financial and program management both within
the AO and throughout the judiciary.
administrative office staffing
Over the past four years the judges and staff of the Judicial
Branch who are supported by the AO have grown by approximately 15
percent. The AO workload is directly related to the overall increase in
the number of judges and staff in the judicial branch. Not only has AO
staffing not kept up with this growth in the courts, it actually
declined from fiscal years 1995 to 1997. Thus, our workload has
increased but our staff has decreased. The following chart compares
recent FTE growth in judges and court staff to the comparable changes
in the AO staffing:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995-97 1995-99
1995 1997 change 1999 change
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges and Staff......................................... 26,919 28,253 +5 30,932 +15
AO Direct FTE............................................ 668 639 -4 668 .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the population we serve continues to grow, the AO request
provides for staff at only the level funded in fiscal year 1995.
Without the requested resources, the AO cannot continue to provide the
needed level of support to the courts in the core areas of personnel,
payroll, accounting, training, procurement, and security, while
continuing to assist the courts in developing and implementing new
automated systems and procedures to improve the operation and
productivity of court programs.
Between fiscal years 1995 and 1997, we attempted with a lower level
of staff, to both maintain a high level of core services and develop
new systems and procedures. This necessitated a limited hiring freeze,
which allowed for the hiring of personnel for only our highest priority
needs. This attempt did not succeed and resulted in unacceptable
delays/cutbacks in efforts such as: the development of a replacement
Criminal Justice Act payment system; performance of annual audits;
field assessments of court unit operations; improvements to internal
controls; and court training and education projects. These and other
initiatives are important to AO efforts to ensure that funds provided
to the judiciary are spent properly and in the most effective manner
possible.
With the additional resources provided by Congress in fiscal year
1998, we will be able to hire an additional auditor; an internal
controls officer; a distance learning specialist; a budget and a
program management position to support defender services; and a number
of specialists to assist in developing and implementing a new court
accounting system; a new personnel/payroll system; a new jury
management system; and new criminal debt collection procedures for the
courts.
The additional resources we request for fiscal year 1999 will
further enhance our ability to support the courts, especially in the
area of new technologies. Resources will be applied to continue
implementation of the new payment system for panel attorneys and
experts, the personnel/payroll system, and the jury management system.
All of these new systems will reach a critical phase in fiscal year
1999, requiring specialized staffing to integrate the new systems into
our central accounting system and to provide on-site technical and
training support. Additional resources are also required to expand
distance learning efforts, to better assist courts in procuring high
technology equipment and services, and to provide ongoing support to
efforts to improve the civil justice component of our courts. I would
be pleased to provide additional explanation of any of these areas of
enhanced support. The bottom line is that the benefactor of this
support is not the AO, it is the courts and ultimately the taxpayers. A
few extra staff at the AO allows us to improve procedures, the justice
system, streamline operations, and reduce costs within the courts. To
illustrate the impact of AO staff, the following section provides
examples of how the AO works with the courts to improve productivity.
administrative office promotes efficiency throughout the judiciary
Of the myriad services that the AO provides to the courts, perhaps
the most important are our efforts to increase the efficiency of court
operations. It is certainly an activity of which I am very proud. It is
not only desirable, but necessary for the courts to operate with
increased efficiency because they are not provided 100 percent of the
staffing justified by our workload formulae. In the past, I have spoken
separately of the AO's achievements and of the efficiency measures
implemented by the courts, but they are becoming more and more
indistinguishable. Some of our most noteworthy achievements are those
that promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts.
Chief Justice Rehnquist highlighted an important example in his
1997 report on the judiciary. He stated that, ``Led by the
Administrative Offices' efforts, the federal Judiciary has achieved an
impressive devolution of management authority and control away from
Washington to the individual federal courts.'' The Chief Justice refers
to our effort to decentralize financial, personnel, procurement, and
other administrative activities to the local federal courts, who best
know their own needs. He continued by stating, ``This kind of
decentralization has benefitted both the Judiciary and the taxpayer
because it encourages every court to find innovative ways to increase
efficiency and save money.'' To facilitate this new decision-making
process, the AO has simplified the way it allots operating funds to the
courts. Funds previously allocated in 40 separate expense categories
were combined in one aggregate amount using objectively developed
formulas. The Chief Justice remarked that ``the paperwork burden for
preparing each court's budget request was substantially reduced or
eliminated, and the courts were assured an equitable distribution of
these operating funds.''
You have recently received the second Report to Congress on the
Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources. This report showcases the
efficiency efforts of the judiciary. It is the result of a combined
effort between the program committees of the Judicial Conference and
the Economy Subcommittee of the Budget Committee. While every program
committee is dedicated to efficiency, it is the sole purpose of the
Economy Subcommittee. As you know, the Economy Subcommittee and its
support staff from the AO operate as the judiciary's Office of
Management and Budget. Their work on assessing diverse requests,
limiting increases, and improving program operations is indispensable.
We take the efforts discussed in the Report very seriously. Some of
the efforts are completed and are resulting in savings for the
judiciary, others are underway, and still others are in the planning
stages. But I can assure you that they are all real commitments that AO
staff are working toward. Let me summarize some of our efforts for you.
Automation and Technology
The AO has spearheaded the use of videoconferencing for court
proceedings and administrative purposes in the judiciary. Currently, 18
district courts use videoconferencing to support prisoner-related
proceedings, such as pretrial hearings, witness testimony, and
evidentiary hearings. An additional 16 districts will be added by the
end of this fiscal year and another 16 sites are to be added by fiscal
year 2001. Videoconferencing also is expected to become more widely
used for meetings, conferences, and training seminars. The use of
videoconferencing helps the judges and court staff to schedule more
efficiently, reduces the security risks involved in transporting
prisoners, and reduces travel costs.
The AO also is pursuing the use of satellite broadcasting for its
training programs. The judiciary plans about 50 broadcasts for fiscal
year 1998 with an estimated viewing population of 800 to 1,000 people
each. To overcome the problems with scheduling leased facilities, a
broadcast studio located at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary
Building here in Washington, DC will be used by the AO, the Sentencing
Commission and the Federal Judicial Center for future broadcasts.
Two other on-going projects that offer great promise are electronic
case files and electronic courtrooms. A limited number of courts have
begun testing these technologies and they are currently being assessed
for benefits, costs, and feasibility. Implementation of electronic case
files would allow the courts and attorneys to file, retrieve, and share
pleadings, motions, briefs, and orders electronically without leaving
their office. Potential benefits include reducing the time spent on
manual tasks such as data entry, photocopying, and document filing,
retrieval, and dissemination. It has the potential for reducing the
space needed for paper records and providing more accurate, up-to-date
records. Electronic courtrooms would make use of videoconferencing,
video evidence presentation systems, electronic court-reporting
methods, and courtroom access to various databases. Electronic
courtrooms are likely to reduce trial times while improving juror
understanding.
The electronic public access program to case information has proven
to be a success, receiving over 9 million calls in fiscal year 1997,
allowing the bar and public to access court information directly from
their office. The program is self-funded with user fees and is being
enhanced to provide more services. Another success is telephone
interpreting, which provides interpreter services by telephone for
short judicial proceedings, allowing courts to utilize the services of
certified interpreters without incurring travel and per diem costs.
About 800 hearings were conducted with telephone interpreting in fiscal
year 1997. The AO continues to administer the Bankruptcy Noticing
Center. The Center is operated by a private vendor and is responsible
for mailing bankruptcy notices, of which there are about 72 million a
year. The AO is also working on improvements to the process, including
electronic noticing and automatic docketing of the notice to the
originating bankruptcy court.
The AO also continues to work on upgrading or replacing the
automated systems that provide basic administrative services to the
judiciary. These include the court accounting system, the personnel and
payroll systems, the jury management system, the library system, and
the system that makes payments to panel attorneys and experts for those
unable to pay for their own defense.
Space and Facilities
The AO developed criteria and an analysis process for the courts to
use when determining whether to establish or maintain facilities
without resident judges. The AO also administers an incentive program
to reduce space. Together, these efforts have resulted in the judiciary
releasing 62,773 square feet of existing space with an associated rent
savings of about $1 million in fiscal year 1997.
The AO also participated in a major update of the U.S. Courts
Design Guide, which identifies the requirements to make federal
courthouses functional and secure. The revisions to the Guide are
expected to reduce future building construction costs by about five
percent, or $2 million, for an average project.
Defender Services
The AO is as concerned as you are about containing the cost of
providing legal representation for defendants unable to retain counsel
on their own. The study of the rising costs conducted by Coopers and
Lybrand, L.L.P., in cooperation with the AO, confirmed some of our
previous thoughts about the program and provided some new insights. The
main finding was that costs are in line with what one would expect of
the increase in the number of representations, the increasing
proportion of capital and capital habeas representations, and the cost
incurred in a handful of extraordinarily expensive capital
representations each year. As you know, the judiciary has no control
over the number of individuals for whom it must provide defense
services, but it has taken significant steps to curtail costs.
The AO has provided staff and support for several improvements that
should help control defense costs. The Judicial Conference adopted a
policy last year urging each circuit to establish a special process for
the review of capital habeas corpus cases for which attorney
compensation exceeds $100,000. Courts are being encouraged to require
counsel in federal capital habeas corpus cases to submit proposed
litigation budgets for court approval before representation starts and
employ case management techniques commonly used in complex civil
litigation. Finally, the judiciary is conducting two-year pilot
projects to explore using a supervising attorney to assist with
administering the panel attorney program and with reviewing claims
submitted by panel attorneys and other service providers.
Another important effort that the AO provides staff support for is
the new Subcommittee on Federal Death Penalty Cases. This Subcommittee
is exploring issues related to the cost and quality of defense
representation in federal death penalty cases. The Subcommittee will be
reporting to the full Committee on Defender Services this May.
Other
The AO provides oversight and management support to the probation
and pretrial services program. Probation and pretrial services officers
supervise offenders serving sentences in the community, individuals
released from prison on supervised release, and persons released to the
community pending adjudication. In fiscal year 1997, an average of
4,700 individuals were in home confinement on a daily basis. This
resulted in a net cost savings to the government ranging from $32
million to $69 million in corrections facilities, depending on the type
and level of confinement assumed. Furthermore, offenders paid $1.8
million toward the costs of electronic monitoring in fiscal year 1997.
The AO also is testing mobile computing for officers to provide
immediate access to information and allow them to record their field
activities without returning to the office.
The AO conducts the Methods Analysis Program to help courts
identify and develop more efficient practices. The Program uses teams
of functional experts and analysts to conduct in-depth reviews of
specific court operations to identify innovative approaches or better
practices for accomplishing work. Examples of practices identified
include writing an abbreviated pretrial services report in cases where
bond is not an issue and eliminating the filing of discovery documents
in the case opening process.
To help the courts implement the decentralized budgeting system in
place throughout the judiciary the AO recently completed an assessment
of financial training needs throughout the courts for judges, court
unit executives, and financial operating personnel. The AO now is
developing plans for implementing recommendations for training
programs.
efficiency within the administrative office compares favorably to other
justice system agencies
In addition to supporting judiciary-wide cost cutting efforts, the
AO itself is an excellent example of efficiency, particularly when our
budget and responsibilities are compared to similar organizations. The
AO's responsibilities are somewhat comparable to the general
administration functions at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both are
responsible for providing administrative services to large
organizations that help enforce the nation's laws. Appropriated fund
staffing levels in the Justice Department management and administration
accounts that most closely resemble the AO in function grew by almost
18 percent from fiscal year 1995 to 1998. Over that same period, AO
appropriated fund staffing declined by almost two percent. Also, as the
chart below shows, AO appropriated fund staffing levels amount to two
percent of total judiciary FTE in fiscal year 1998, while the FTE
funded by appropriations for the aforementioned DOJ management and
administration accounts amount to almost five percent of total DOJ FTE.
COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING LEVELS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
year 1998 Percent
FTE of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judiciary:
Total, Judiciary.............................. 30,637 .........
Administrative Office..................... 657 2
Department of Justice:
Total, DOJ.................................... 119,811 .........
Management and Administration by Account:
General Administration.................... 656 .........
Antitrust Division........................ 59 .........
U.S. Attorneys............................ 223 .........
U.S. Marshals Service..................... 74 .........
Trustees.................................. 52 .........
FBI....................................... 1,896 .........
DEA....................................... 698 .........
INS....................................... 1,192 .........
Bureau of Prisons......................... 1,276 .........
---------------------
Subtotal, M&A........................... 6,126 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I point this out, not to complain about the level of resources
provided to DOJ, but to point out that we are a lean organization. When
changes occur in the population we serve or in the type of support we
are asked to provide, we require additional resources. The modest
increase we request in fiscal year 1999 is necessary if we are to
continue to provide the high level of support required by the courts.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
time and attention. As you know, few government missions are as
essential as the administration of justice. The AO is the judiciary's
administrative core, serving the courts so that they can focus on
serving the public. I know you will be considering many worthy requests
for funding and just ask that you give the AO the same thoughtful
consideration that you have in the past.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Haldane Robert Mayer, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit my statement to the Committee
for this court's fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Our 1999 budget request totals $16,828,000. This is an increase of
$1,211,000 over the 1998 approved appropriation of $15,617,000.
$693,000 of the increase is for mandatory, uncontrollable increases in
costs. The remaining increase of $518,000 is for funding for additional
positions.
Partial funding for third in-chambers law clerk.--The court is
requesting the additional positions to begin providing third law clerks
to the judges on a permanent basis. The judges of this court now have
two permanent in-chambers law clerks (compared to three or four for
other circuit judges). The third law clerk is needed because of the
complexity of the court's caseload and because all merits decisions are
handled in chambers without assistance from a central legal staff. This
funding request is for seven law clerk positions. I ask the Committee
to meet this court's long-standing need by authorizing the funding
requested. We are currently funding the additional law clerks with
funds made available by leaving some staff positions vacant. The court
has a vacant settlement attorney and several staff attorney positions
vacant at this time. Authority to fund the third law clerks on a
permanent basis would allow the court the funding needed to hire a
settlement attorney as well as additional staff attorneys.
Funding for additional positions in the Clerk's Office.--The court
is also requesting funds to hire four full-time positions in the
Clerk's Office. These positions are needed to keep pace with the
court's growing jurisdiction.
Mandatory Increases
As stated above, our fiscal year 1999 increases in mandatory items,
over which the court has no control, total $693,000. As described in
our budget materials, these mandatory increases result primarily from
inflation and pay increases.
Program Changes and Requests
Personnel Requests--Additional Law Clerks.--The sum of $375,000 is
requested for the third law clerk positions. This would cover an
increase of seven full-time law clerk positions. This does not provide
a third law clerk for each of the twelve active judges. However, it
would allow the court to hire seven additional law clerks on a
permanent basis. The base budget of this circuit currently provides for
two law clerks and one secretary in each chambers. This number is one
law clerk and one secretary (or additional law clerk) less than the
Judicial Conference of the United States has authorized for active
circuit judges. One of the seven law clerk positions would be used to
hire a law clerk to serve in part as an administrative assistant to the
chief judge. This position is authorized for all other circuit chief
judges.
The third law clerk positions for all twelve judges of this court
have been included previously in our request for a 1993 supplemental
appropriation, and in our appropriation requests in 1994, 1995, 1996,
1997 and 1998. This long-standing need, however, remains unmet.
One additional in-chambers law clerk for each active judge of this
court has become a necessity because of the increased complexity of our
cases, such as patent infringement cases which often have a large
number of difficult issues, and because of the additional subject
matter jurisdiction which Congress has given the court, such as review
of veterans' cases, and appellate jurisdiction under the recently
enacted Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Presidential
and Executive Office Accountability Act of 1996. During the past few
years, the court has hired temporary third law clerks for judges by
using lapsed funds from a vacant judgeship and from vacant staff
positions which we decided were not as urgently needed as the
additional in-chambers law clerks. We have, for example, delayed
implementing our settlement program and deferred hiring three staff
attorneys and support staff. The additional, though temporary, help of
the in-chambers law clerks has enabled the court to moderate the rise
in median disposition time for merits cases, which is now about nine
and one-half months, and to prevent a serious backlog of undecided
cases.
The court has a great need to have the temporary third law clerk
positions made permanent and funded. Once the court has a full
complement of judges, the lapsed funds from a judicial vacancy will no
longer be available to hire such clerks on a temporary basis. Further,
with only temporary positions we are unable to guarantee employment
beyond the end of a fiscal year, which can be an obstacle to securing
the services of the best qualified law clerks.
This court did not begin requesting funding for the third law
clerks until it became apparent that it was necessary to do so. The
request is based on need.
Personnel Requests--Administrative Staff Positions in Clerk's
Office.--The court requests funding for four additional clerical
positions for the Clerk's Office at a cost of $143,000. There is now
only one secretary in the Clerk's Office. Another secretary position is
needed to assist the chief deputy clerks and to insure that the
secretarial functions for the entire office, now exclusively provided
by the secretary to the Clerk, are available whenever required. A
systems manager position is needed because the complexity of the
Clerk's database management system has grown beyond the competence of
the non-technical staff to maintain as extra duties. Two deputy clerk
positions are needed, one position for a calendar/deputy clerk to
alleviate the calendar functions now performed by the chief deputy
clerk as an extra duty, and one position for a records manager to
develop a records management system now required to keep pace with the
large increase in the permanent records which the court has accumulated
since its creation in 1982, and which must be maintained and preserved.
I will be glad, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions the Committee
may have or to meet with Committee members or staff about our budget
requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of
International Trade
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: The Court's budget request
for fiscal year 1999 is $11,822,000, which is $344,000 or approximately
three percent more than the $11,478,000 provided for in fiscal year
1998.
The overall increase of $344,000 consists of ``Mandatory
Adjustments to Base and Built-in Changes'' as follows:
--$269,000 is requested for pay and benefit cost adjustments for
judicial officers and court personnel.
--$10,000 is requested for other mandatory changes, including
increases in postage and printing.
--$20,000 is requested for inflationary adjustments for lawbooks.
--$45,000 is requested for GSA space rental increases.
The Court's fiscal year 1999 request includes funds for the
continuation and support of such fiscal year 1998 projects as video
conferencing and real-time court reporting and for the implementation
of such additional projects as the development of a web-site in order
to provide the general public and the bar with information, expanding
in-house training in the utilization of automation and technology, and
implementing the Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow. The
continuation and expansion of these information technology projects
will continue to prepare the Court to enter the 21st Century.
I would like to emphasize that the Court will continue, as it has
in the past, to conserve its financial resources through sound and
prudent personnel and fiscal management practices.
The Court's ``General Statement and Information'' and
``Justification of Changes'', which provide more detailed descriptions
of each line item adjustment, have been submitted previously. If the
Committee requires any additional information, we will be pleased to
submit it.
Private attorney costs
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Judge.
I will yield to Senator Domenici first.
Senator Domenici. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, I want to
thank you for your help last year in getting the 2-year
legislation which will be effective for 2 years unless we
extend it with reference to more disclosure in the public
defender system and the costs that are being incurred.
Senator Gregg. Yes.
Senator Domenici. I have not had a chance to review
thoroughly how it is being implemented, but I have looked at it
in a cursory manner----
Judge Heyburn. It just started in January.
Senator Domenici. You have set forth some rules, and Mr.
Mecham has shown them to us, and we are looking at them.
Clearly it is moving in the right direction, and I am very
pleased that from what I can tell every effort is being made to
comply with them. I think it is very important that we find out
as much as possible about this. None of my intentions, Judge,
were to deny adequate defense.
Judge Heyburn. No; we viewed your questions as entirely
helpful. To a certain extent it began with our discussions in
your office last year, and continued with our discussions here
at this meeting. And I believe that it is a totally positive
situation. It has helped us understand the program more, and I
think the results will be positive for everybody.
Senator Domenici. I still continue to have a concern. In my
mind's eye, and I don't know how it works, and it may be
totally theoretical, but for very, very serious offenses, like
capital offenses or first degree murder offenses, the costs
that we are paying to the public defenders are frequently so
large that one wonders how somebody worth $200,000 or $300,000
could defend themselves.
I can see a person with little or no resources getting a
$300,000 or $400,000 or $500,000 defense, and I can see
somebody who has assets of a couple of hundred thousand
dollars, 45 years old, and they don't get any. They have to
spend $150,000 of it on less of a defense, and that concerns
me.
I do not expect you to be Solomon. I do not know how to
solve that, but that continues to be on my mind. I do not want
to expand for whom we pay expenses. I am not suggesting that,
but you understand what I am discussing right now.
Judge Heyburn. Exactly.
Funding priorities
Senator Domenici. I guess I would ask whether you or the
Administrative Officer could, and I hope it is not too much
work, but I understand that many of your budgets do not go up
very much, many of the internal pieces, but the overall is
still a 9.9-percent increase on the judiciary and everything
related to it.
Judge Heyburn. Appropriations. 6.7 percent on the actual
obligations.
Senator Domenici. Correct. I am just wondering if you might
ask the administrative officer to tell us what would be the
highest priority among those. That is hard to do, I know.
Judge Heyburn. Well, we certainly will, and I would like to
respond to that.
Senator Domenici. Sure.
Judge Heyburn. Our philosophy is that we ask you for what--
maybe you hear this from other people--we ask you for what we
really need, and you can look at our budget. We are asking for,
in the accounts that I am here representing, about $260 million
of increase.
About $190 million of that is increases to the actual base,
which includes a 2.3-percent increase for employees, and GSA
rent increases. Seventy million dollars of it is rent increases
that GSA imposes upon us, including a security surcharge that
they are attempting to impose on us.
We are asking for additional money based on our increased
workload. And they are high priorities. One is $15 million
approximately in the probation area. We have a record number of
convicted felons and others who are out there on supervised
release.
And not only do we have a record number on supervised
release, but they are of a different category. About 5 years
ago more of them were on pretrial release. Now that the
sentencing guidelines have been going for a number of years,
and a greater percentage of these people are felons who have
served their sentence and they are now out. They are more
dangerous by history and typically take more effort to
supervise. But it is $15 million there.
Over the last 4 years we probably had a 60-percent increase
in bankruptcy filings. We are asking for a $30 million increase
to fund bankruptcy clerks. If we do not fund that, that means
creditors do not get paid, debtors do not get dismissed from
bankruptcy. It causes tremendous commercial delay and
confusion.
And actually, in an attempt to hold down our budget
request, we have delayed requesting the full amount. I know the
staff knows this, but based on the staffing formulas, we could
have requested the entire $60 million last year in our budget.
But we thought that the increase was so dramatic that maybe
it would go down. Also, we are not sure that the staff of the
bankruptcy courts could adequately hire that many people that
fast. So we only asked for one-half of it last year and one-
half of it this year.
Another $16 million is for security, which we can discuss
if you would like to. We are actually asking for $7 million
less for the district courts and appellate courts combined.
So, we think it is a tight budget, and as the staff know,
and the chairman knows, and you know, I am sure, we do not
attempt each year to spend all the money you give us just to
prove that the amount you gave us was the right amount.
If we can save it, we do, and last year we carried over a
substantial amount, most of it due to either good management on
our part or circumstances which were completely beyond our
control, which resulted in less expenditure. We hope that the
same thing will happen this year if circumstances warrant it.
Senator Domenici. Thank you. You don't have to submit
anything in writing. We will just review what you said. Thank
you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Domenici.
Court security
One question I have is the explosion in costs relative to
the U.S. marshals, and especially the overhead costs. It is all
tied into security to some degree. On the other hand, it is
also tied into this moving of prisoners. I am wondering if you
have any thoughts on where this is going.
Judge Heyburn. Well, we are hoping that it is ending. This
year's request is only a 6.9-percent increase. I think that we
are reaching a plateau. Almost all the additional resources for
CSO's--and this is in our budget--this year comes because of
new facilities.
We are looking at the numbers that the U.S. Marshals
Service has given us, and going over those again. We have
talked with staff about this. And at some time in the future,
in the next month or so, we hope to give you a detailed listing
of exactly where the new CSO's are going to go, and exactly
what the rationale was for them. We just want to confirm that
ourselves. I am not certain, as we have told the staff, whether
there is going to be any difference.
But we want to look at it very, very carefully, because
there is a question as to how the Marshals Service is
allocating new CSO's, particularly when we have new buildings
going on line. Sometimes there is a transition there. The old
building is still in existence, and you are transitioning to a
new building. So we are looking at that.
I know that whenever we open a new building, of course
there are some expenses that we incur in our budget, and then
there are some expenses that are in the marshals' budget. And I
cannot really comment on those.
Again, it is a subject that we are struggling with. We are
trying to find the right balance. Nobody wants the courthouses
to be fortresses. We do want the public to be safe and to feel
safe, and I would hope we are getting to the point where we
have standards that are consistent and the increases that we
will see in future years relate to new facilities or a new
perceived threat, if such a situation exists.
I hope that is responsive.
Senator Gregg. Yes; I think that was responsive.
Defender services costs
Now, the Coopers & Lybrand study, which I have looked at in
a cursory way, seems to essentially say that the expenditures
on the defender program are what would be expected from the
growth of the demands.
But there still remains the capital crimes issue. Have you
got any new ideas on how we get control over the costs of
capital defenses?
Judge Heyburn. Well, the capital crimes issue is, as I am
sure you are aware, is really into two categories. One is the
capital prosecutions, and then the other part of it is the
capital habeas cases.
The capital prosecution side is driven by factors that are
to a great extent, not totally, beyond our control--that is,
the number of capital cases that the U.S. attorneys and the
Justice Department determines to bring.
The resources they bring to those prosecutions drive the
costs. Now, we are attempting to sensitize the judges and
attorneys to better budgeting, so we think that is going to
have some impact there.
But as the Coopers & Lybrand study suggested, if there are
more capital cases brought, and there are more prosecutorial
resources brought to bear in those cases, the defense costs are
going to be higher. There is just no way around that.
The other area is the capital habeas cases. And overall,
the study showed that the cost of defending capital habeas
cases has declined slightly. Overall, the number of those cases
is increasing, and that is causing an increase.
There is a particular problem in a couple of districts in
California. The cost per case is twice as high as the rest of
the country; and, a greater number of death row inmates in
California, a greater percentage of them, have habeas cases
going.
Twenty-five percent of those on death row in California
have habeas cases going and only about 10 percent in the rest
of the country. So there is a discrepancy, and the average cost
in California is something like $85,000 and in the rest of the
country it is $28,000 to $31,000.
So we have already done some things which we think will
affect the situation. The ninth circuit already has imposed a
case budgeting requirement on habeas cases. They have already
reduced the presumed rate that will be allowed for attorneys
representing habeas cases from what was an average of about
$150 an hour. Now the maximum is $125, and it will be lower for
associates and others.
So that will start to have an immediate effect, and there
are some other things that the ninth circuit is looking into.
We have our own committee that is looking into ways to, No. 1,
further analyze the situation in California, to see what
exactly is behind the numbers, and to see what specific actions
we can take to reduce it.
The total defender budget we are requesting is $392
million. The capital habeas portion of that is about $28
million. The California portion is about $12 million. So we are
talking about a small segment, but if California were in line
with the rest of the country, we are talking about a number of
millions of dollars of savings. But irrespective, even if it
were just $100,000, we are concerned about the discrepancy, and
want to deal with it. And we will.
Senator Gregg. Well, I do think it is an issue that you
want to continue to focus on, because it just seems
incomprehensible, the costs.
new Technologies
Now, to what extent does videoconferencing and the use of
electronics give courts an option to save dollars, because of
not having to move people around the country and using
communications of the 21st century.
Judge Heyburn. I think increasingly it does. I cannot stand
here and tell you it is widespread, because the judiciary, just
like everybody else, is learning how to use these new
technologies.
But we have an electronic courtroom project, and we have
some model courts that are using electronic presentation of
evidence, and the U.S. attorneys are heavily into this. This
saves a substantial amount of time, not only for judges, but
apropos of our just now concluded conversation, it saves trial
time which affects defender budgets.
We have a bankruptcy noticing system that is saving money,
electronic noticing. We have a number of videoconferencing
pilot projects to allow conferences between prison inmates and
judges and attorneys.
We are beginning an electronic case filing system, which
again could in the future save on clerks and time. There is
electronic public access to the court dockets, which again has
a number of benefits--easing the public access, but also less
work for the clerks.
So there are a number of projects that are going on. I
would say it is fair to say that most of them are in their
infancy. And some of them will prove, I think, highly
beneficial. Others may prove to have different kinds of
benefits.
But we are trying all of them.
Senator Gregg. So you have a formal structure for taking a
look at all of this?
Judge Heyburn. Absolutely. Yes.
Cost-of-living adjustment
Senator Gregg. OK. On the pay raise issue, I certainly
intend to put in the COLA again, so you will have it.
Judge Heyburn. We appreciate that.
closing remarks
Senator Gregg. Do you have anything else you wish to
comment on?
Judge Heyburn. I do not think so, except to say again that
we very much appreciate your attitude and that of the staff, in
dealing with us in what we feel is a very, very fair way, and
if you have concerns, bringing them to our attention.
We hope you appreciate the fact that we are trying to be
responsive in every way that we can to your concerns. From my
limited point of view now, over 1\1/2\ years of doing this
particular job, I think the results have been positive for both
of us.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. I agree. I think we have made good progress
in a lot of areas that we both have an interest in.
Judge Heyburn. Yes.
Senator Gregg. Thank you for your assistance.
Judge Heyburn. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the courts for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
defender services
Question. Last year our Conference Report clearly expressed concern
over the rapidly rising costs in the Defender Services program,
including the average cost of capital representations. I notice that
your request for this year is $360 million, up $31 million from last
year's enacted level. Will you comment on this $31 million increase,
and what it says, if anything, about the increasing costs of capital
punishment trials?
Can you explain how the Judiciary measures and determines expected
caseload increases in general? How is this reflected in your budget
request?
Will you comment on this $31 million increase?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 Defender Services financial plan will
support at least 92,000 Criminal Justice Act (CJA) representations \1\
and totals $362,867,000. It is funded from the following sources:
$329,529,000 in direct appropriations, $24,953,000 from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund and the balance through the transfer of fees
from the judiciary Salaries and Expenses account as needed in
accordance with the language from the House and Senate conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts is in the process of reviewing the fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999 caseload projections. Re-estimates will be provided to
Congress throughout the appropriations process as more current data is
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 1999, the judiciary has requested funding in the
amount of $391,831,000 ($360,952,000 in direct appropriations and
$30,879,000 from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund) to support
95,900 CJA representations. The increase between the fiscal year 1998
financial plan of $362,867,000 and the fiscal year 1999 budget request
of $391,831,000 is $28,964,000 (7.9 percent over fiscal year 1998
projected obligations) and consists of the following items.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-wide OMB-mandated pay and benefit
adjustments.................................. $8,863,000 2.4
Panel attorney rate adjustment................ 5,096,000 1.4
Other mandatory changes (e.g. standard
inflationary increases)...................... 9,016,000 2.5
Additional 3,900 representations and changes
in caseload mix.............................. 4,789,000 1.3
Establishment of new defender organizations... 1,200,000 .3
-------------------------
Total................................... 28,964,000 7.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What does the $31 million increase say, if anything about
the increasing costs of capital punishment trials?
Answer. The panel attorney average annual cost per federal death
penalty representation increased in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997. It is anticipated that, on a per representation basis, this cost
will decrease in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 due to the
resolution of several unusually large and costly cases. However, while
the cost per representation is falling, the number of federal death
penalty representations is rising. This may result in significant costs
to the judiciary in the future. Since the Department of Justice does
not predict how many federal capital prosecutions it will bring in a
given year, it is difficult for the judiciary to estimate the number of
cases and the associated funding that will be necessary in order to
provide defendants with constitutionally mandated representation
services.
Question. Can you explain how the Judiciary measures and determines
expected caseload increases in general?
Answer. The Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts projects the annual number of federal criminal defendants
that will require counsel under the CJA. This is generally based on the
number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys the Department of Justice predicts
it will employ. The Statistics Division then divides the projection of
federal criminal defendants into those for whom panel attorneys and
those for whom federal defenders will provide representation. It is
generally assumed that panel attorneys will provide representation for
approximately 40 percent of the criminal defendants. In addition, panel
attorneys usually represent approximately 10,000 defendants in other
CJA cases (e.g., trial disposition appeals, capital and non-capital
habeas corpus cases, probation revocations, bail presentment hearings,
representation of witnesses). Federal defender organizations are
expected to be appointed in the balance of the representations,
depending on the number of attorneys they anticipate hiring.
Question. How is this reflected in your budget request?
Answer. The Defender Services budget request is based upon the
projected number of representations as described above. For panel
attorneys, the number of representations and the cost per
representation is estimated and the product of these two numbers is the
funding requested for the panel. For federal defender organizations,
obligations are determined by projecting the attorney and support staff
that must be on board in order to provide representation in the cases
anticipated and determining the cost of that staff (i.e., salaries and
benefits, rent, expert services, travel, and other overhead expenses).
Question. Your fiscal year 1999 budget request includes $16 million
for security surcharges assessed by GSA. Why are these charges assessed
and what are they for?
Answer. Following the April 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, an Interagency Security Committee
led by the Department of Justice was established to assess the
vulnerability of federal facilities to bombings and other security
threats and to recommend enhanced security measures for federal
buildings. Beginning with fiscal year 1999, the costs incurred by GSA
for these security measures are to be paid through space rental rates
assessed each agency. These charges are building-specific costs and are
based on the judiciary's percentage of a building's occupancy. The
costs include the maintenance of GSA building-wide capital security
enhancements, outdoor security cameras and recording devices, intrusion
alarm systems, garage access control systems and other physical
security measures such as concrete planters and vehicle barriers and
costs of contract guards assigned to perimeter patrols and some
screening duties in large multi-tenant federal buildings. GSA has
provided the judiciary with a building-by-building listing of the
charges. We are currently analyzing the charges presented and will
advise the Subcommittee as to whether the GSA-provided detail listing
is accurate prior to mark-up of the appropriations bill.
Question. What has the judiciary done to reduce courthouse space
needs and construction costs since last year?
Answer. The Judicial Conference approved a number of initiatives,
proposed by its Committee on Security and Facilities, related to space
and facilities management in 1997. All of these initiatives are either
complete or in the advanced stages of implementation.
Changes to Space Standards and Design Guidelines
The federal judiciary has consistently emphasized the need to
contain the costs of court facilities. One of the judiciary's major
initiatives in this regard is its recent comprehensive review of the
U.S. Courts Design Guide. The Guide contains the information needed by
GSA, private sector designers and builders, and members of the
judiciary about the special requirements for federal courthouses that
make them functional, secure, quality public buildings.
While the comments received from users during this recent review
indicated the Guide was accomplishing its purpose, the judiciary also
received a number of excellent suggestions for improvements. These
specific recommendations for changes to the Guide were approved by the
Judicial Conference at its March 1997 meeting and have been
incorporated into the Guide which is now available. Approved changes to
the Guide include:
--Narrative has been added to emphasize the important role the
project budget, long term durability, and maintenance costs
play in determining the level and type of interior finishes in
new courthouses and in renovation projects;
--Use of exotic hardwoods is prohibited;
--The sizes of chambers suites when chambers library collections are
shared between or among judicial officers is reduced. Designs
that reduce chambers lawbook costs and do not increase rental
costs are now included in the Guide as optional design
configurations for new construction and remodeled space;
--The amount of space needed to move from one space to another, i.e.,
circulation space, is defined in more detail in order to limit
this space;
--Design architects and court staff are prohibited from adding spaces
not originally contemplated in design programs, including
spaces that increase floor size or building volume;
--Staff office sizes are delineated in more specific terms;
--Narrative has been added to encourage the use of and reaffirm the
need for shared use of space common to all court offices, such
as conference and training rooms and staff lavatories, and
specific standards on the size and number of these facilities
is now included;
--The Conference took no position on locating courtrooms and chambers
on separate floors, but this design configuration will be
included in the Guide as an option available to courts wishing
to incorporate it into construction projects;
--The Conference agreed to prohibit any action taken by a court or
circuit judicial council that would lead to extravagance in
courthouse construction or renovation; at the same time the
Conference recognized the need to make design decisions that
ensure courthouses constructed or renovated represent long-term
value.
--The Conference also agreed to include in the Guide a number of
changes and clarifications that will likely result in some cost
avoidances, whose exact savings cannot yet be estimated (e.g.,
incorporating language emphasizing cost control and budgetary
constraint both in a separate prominent chapter and in
budgetary and programming ``notes'' throughout the document).
The anticipated cost savings resulting from these Conference-
approved changes to the Design Guide are significant. A private cost
estimating firm has analyzed these changes through the comparison of a
``typical'' courthouse project that might have been designed without
the approved changes to the same courthouse if it were designed with
the approved changes. The consultant's conclusion is that the changes
would result in an overall difference of some five percent, or over $2
million in a $40 million project. This five percent is in addition to
the $1.5 million in cost savings effected by any previous changes to
the Guide since its original publication.
The Judicial Conference anticipates that the Guide changes it has
approved will reduce construction cost and will continue to result in
high value federal courthouses that are functional, durable, safe and
economical.
Sharing Space with State and Local Governments
The Conference has also adopted a policy encouraging courts to
explore shared court facility arrangements with state and local
governments, or other entities, to reduce space rental costs.
Administrative Office staff is developing instructions and procedures
for use by courts wishing to enter into such arrangements. Ultimately,
however, the authority to approve entering into these arrangements lies
with the General Services Administration.
Space Management
As part of a comprehensive space management initiative the
Conference also agreed that, circuit judicial councils should submit an
evaluation of current space (i.e., a space inventory) in each
judiciary-occupied building every two years. The purpose of this
analysis is to assist courts and councils with determining whether
space can be used in a more efficient manner or released to the General
Services Administration.
Courtroom Planning Assumptions
Likewise, in recognition of congressional interest in the number of
courtrooms constructed in new courthouses and in major alteration
projects the Conference approved specific planning assumptions that can
be used to determine the courtroom capacity in new buildings. These
assumptions, which have been incorporated into an automated model that
can be used by courts and circuit judicial councils as a complement to
other available planning tools, address several factors that can affect
the number of courtrooms needed in the short and long term. Some of
these factors include the average age of a district judge upon
appointment, the average number of years it takes for a replacement
judge to begin work, and the number of years that a senior judge would
require a courtroom dedicated specifically to his or her use. Prior to
taking this action, there were no specific assumptions for use by the
courts. The Conference agreed that courts and circuit judicial councils
should have the opportunity to modify any of these planning assumptions
(listed below) to ensure that an individual court's needs are taken
into account when making projections of space requirements.
Courtroom Planning Assumptions as Approved by The Judicial
Conference of the United States
The average age of a district judge upon appointment is 48 years
old;
A replacement judge will begin working 2 years after the judge
being replaced takes senior status;
A senior judge will require a courtroom dedicated specifically to
his or her use for 10 years after taking senior status;
A judge will elect to take senior status upon the date of
eligibility;
Once a court's caseload warrants a new judgeship, it will take
three years for the new judge to begin work.
courtroom sharing policy
Question. What is the judiciary's policy on sharing courtrooms? Why
should each active judge have their own courtroom when clearly space is
such a problem?
Answer. The Conference adopted a policy on courtroom sharing in
March 1997. This policy has been published in the United States Courts
Design Guide. The policy supports the position of providing a courtroom
for each active district judge and also encourages courts and circuit
judicial councils to consider the number of courtrooms to be
constructed in new and existing facilities for senior judges not
drawing a caseload requiring substantial use of a courtroom, and for
visiting judges. The Conference asked the judicial councils, which have
the statutory authority to determine the need for court accommodations
(28 U.S.C. sec. 462(b)), to develop a policy on sharing courtrooms by
senior judges when a senior judge does not draw a caseload requiring
substantial use of a courtroom, and for visiting judges. Administrative
Office staff is in the process of reviewing the circuit judicial
council policies that have been received to date. The policies from all
councils should be available in mid-1998.
Upon review of the issue of courtroom usage, the Conference
determined that providing a courtroom for each active district judge
allows judges to dispose of cases expeditiously and to set firm trial
dates because courtroom availability is guaranteed. Firm trial dates
promote settlement in civil cases and pleas in criminal cases, thereby
avoiding the need for and cost of trials. This practice also permits
timely handling of emergency matters, such as requests for injunctions,
grand jury problems, contempt hearings, and detention and bail appeals.
Moreover, providing each active district judge a courtroom accommodates
unscheduled opportunities to settle large multi-party cases,
opportunities that may be lost without the immediate access to a
courtroom. This practice also ensures that cases that go to trial are
handled expeditiously, as encouraged by the Speedy Trial Act of 1974
and the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990.
Question. It's my understanding that you all are expecting to hear
from GSA on approximately 1.5 million square feet of space to be
delivered to the Judiciary sometime during 1998. What is the status of
delivery of this space?
Answer. As is the case each year, the judiciary updates the space
rental data provided in its budget justifications to reflect the most
up-to-date information available about scheduled occupancy dates prior
to mark-up. The Administrative Office is now in the process of
verifying both projected amounts of square footage and their associated
costs as part of this cyclical updating process. It is anticipated that
these data will be available in mid-May 1998. The data are made
available so that the Appropriations Subcommittee can make any
necessary adjustments to the information initially submitted.
Question. I'm sure the question of the day is what to do with this
problem of judicial appointments. What I want to know from you is, how
do you budget for judges when you don't know how many will be appointed
this year by Senator Hatch's committee?
Answer. The projections for the number of average judges' vacancies
in fiscal year 1999 are based on the following assumptions:
--The projection assumes that 47 judges will be confirmed and 36
judges will take senior status or retire during fiscal year
1999. These estimates are based on historical experience. For
confirmations, the historical data used is based on a four year
cycle following a presidential election; for fiscal year 1999
the average confirmations for fiscal year 1983, 1987, 1991, and
1995 were used. For new vacancies resulting from senior status
and retirements, annual historical averages are used.
--The base for the fiscal year 1999 projection is the fiscal year
1998 financial plan which funds 740 average FTE for Article III
judges, with 758 judges on board at the end of the fiscal year.
The projections are within reason based on historical experience,
but may change as more current data is available on actual
confirmations and new vacancies which occur during fiscal year 1998.
Re-estimates will be provided to Congress throughout the appropriation
process as more current data is available.
government performance and results act [gpra]
Question. The judicial branch, like the legislative branch, does
not come under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(Results Act). However, in a variety of instances, the tenets of the
Results Act have been incorporated into the operation of the judiciary
simply because they are good business practices. Furthermore, in the
spirit of GPRA, we are continually exploring new and innovative
management, planning, and resource allocation practices to ensure that
the judiciary operates effectively and efficiently in delivering
services in accordance with its mission, goals, and objectives.
Although the GPRA questions for the record were clearly addressed to
executive branch agencies, we have provided answers, where applicable,
to highlight the judiciary's results-oriented activities.
How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to the
agency's mission, strategic goals, and program activities in its budget
request?
Answer. Judiciary planning efforts set forth a mission, goals, and
objectives, and describe intended strategies for accomplishing them,
thereby establishing a judiciary-wide context for setting annual
priorities and providing direction to decision makers in making budget
requests. The judiciary is beginning to include narrative in its annual
budget request defining the link between program mission and goals. For
example, the fiscal year 1999 Defender Services budget request linked
the program's mission to three goals.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. Each judiciary program area, in contemplating annual
resource requirements, describes the anticipated results to be achieved
in that fiscal year. Each quarter, the judiciary conducts formal
programmatic and financial reviews to examine progress in reaching
goals, program results and outcomes, and program effectiveness and
efficiency. A formal training program on performance measurement helps
judiciary staff develop missions, goals, and measures that are linked
to resource requirements.
Question. Does the agency's performance plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Answer. The judiciary is not required to complete an annual
performance plan but it does use performance measures that link to
resource use. For many years we have been measuring and reporting the
results of court operations in such documents as Federal Court
Management Statistics and the Annual Report of the Director. More
recently, in 1995, the Administrative Office (AO) incorporated program
results reporting in its quarterly financial review process--the
process by which managers report on the execution of their programs.
The purpose of this effort is to focus on the link between resource
investment and program results. Moreover, we have begun building on
this effort to determine ways in which we can expand on and enhance the
measurement system already in place.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Answer. At this point, there is no difference between the planning
structure and the activity structure.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
Answer. The judiciary reports, in such documents as Federal Court
Management Statistics and the Annual Report of the Director, a broad
range of performance indicators that show the effectiveness and
efficiency with which the judiciary conducts business. The judiciary is
currently examining these indicators to determine if they could be
improved to establish even stranger links between resource use and
program outcomes.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan that you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
Answer. Although the judiciary was not required to produce a fiscal
year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, planing is a priority. Following
Judicial Conference approval, the first Long Range Plan for the Federal
Courts was published in 1995. This document articulates the mission and
core values of the federal courts and contains close to a hundred
specific goals and strategies to implement them. We recommend the
subcommittee look to the specific goals contained in the document. The
Plan is designed to evolve over time with changes in the judiciary.
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. As mentioned earlier, the judiciary is not required to
issue an Annual Performance Plan. However, the judiciary is making
progress in defining outcome based results-oriented performance
measures. As all organizations involved in the effort are realizing,
this is not an easy process. It requires changing mind-sets,
determining whether things previously viewed as not measurable can in
fact be measured, and refocusing budgeting practices. The challenges
the judiciary faces are comparable to those of the executive branch. We
continue to meet with executive agencies to share our experiences and
learn from others.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
Answer. Numerous systems and processes that focus on results,
efficiency, performance, and accountability drive daily operations in
the judiciary. Several examples include our decentralized budgeting and
personnel systems that provide the overall framework and resource
constraints within which local managers must achieve their goals and
results, the routine reporting of numerous performance-type indicators
that help encourage managers to improve operations by facilitating
comparison between courts on a variety of critical measures, and the
Methods Analysis Program which serves to improve performance by
identifying better business practices. Furthermore, as mentioned
earlier, the judiciary conducts quarterly programmatic and financial
reviews to examine spending practices, program results and outcomes,
and program effectiveness and efficiency. In addition to holding
managers accountable for their programs, these reviews are an important
component of the judiciary's overall efforts to maximize the use of
scarce resources; an element of these quarterly reviews is an
assessment of whether resources need to be realigned among programs to
ensure the judiciary's highest priority needs are met.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance to be achieved by each program activity
set forth in your budget. Many agencies have indicated that their
present budget account structure makes it difficult to link dollars to
results in a clear and meaningful way. Have you faced such difficulty?
Answer. At this point in our efforts, the judiciary has not
experienced such difficulty.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting. The clearly preferred
methodology for such a system, as stated in that standard, is the one
known as ``Activity-Based Costing,'' whereby the full cost is
calculated for each of the activities of an agency. What is the status
of your agency's implementation of the Managerial Cost Accounting
requirement, and are you using Activity-Based Costing?
Answer. Over the past two years, the judiciary has explored and
begun implementing an activity-based resource system. We have adapted
our financial review structure to hold managers accountable for the way
resources are used to achieve results along program lines and are
exploring changing the way resources are requested. Like performance
measurement, an activity-based cost system requires a cultural change
as well as training, not to mention changes in data collection systems.
As part of our performance measurement training, managers were
instructed on the basic principles of activity-based costing.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that, to what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature
to allow for these kinds of uses?
Answer. As mentioned previously, the judiciary uses a variety of
performance measures that demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency
with which the judiciary conducts business. The judiciary is examining
these measures to determine if they could be improved to allow for the
kinds of uses in which Congress is interested.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions in your strategic plan
issued September 30, 1997?
Answer. As mentioned earlier, the Judicial Conference approved the
Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts in 1995. This document
articulates the mission and core values of the federal courts, and
contains close to a hundred specific goals and strategies to implement
them. Revisions in the Plan may occur periodically as the Plan was
designed to evolve over time with changes in the judiciary.
The judiciary realizes that, for results-oriented management to be
successful, coordination with all three branches of government is
required. It is particularly important to have discussions with
Congress and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as much of our workload is
directly generated by legislation and DOJ policy. Realizing this, in
1994, a historic meeting was held of representatives of all three
branches of the federal government, along with state and local
government representatives and academics. This conference was
instrumental in its contributions to the long-range planning process in
discussing how Congress' federalization of state civil and criminal law
will affect the judicial system. The second of these three-branch
conferences was held in 1996. The 1996 conference continued the
discussion begun during the first. The judiciary will host the third
conference in 1997, as the first was hosted by the executive branch and
the second by the legislative branch.
In addition, the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference
continues to meet quarterly with the Attorney General and other
Department of Justice senior staff to discuss issues of mutual
interest. Also, working groups comprised of judges and officials from
the Justice Department have met periodically to share information and
opinions on current legislative issues. These discussions lead to
planning more accurately for workload increases associated with pending
legislation.
Strategic planning is an integral part of the judiciary's internal
governance and management processes. The judiciary has strategic and
long range plans. Formal, comprehensive strategic planning efforts
began in the judiciary in 1990, three years before GPRA, when the
Federal Courts Study Committee recommended the judiciary establish a
permanent capacity to determine long-term goals and develop strategic
plans by which they can reach them. The Chief Justice responded by
creating a Judicial Conference Committee on Long Range Planning and by
enhancing strategic planning capabilities in the Administrative Office.
The committee's established charter was to identify broad issues and
challenges confronting the judiciary and develop strategies for
addressing them.
Complementing the Long Range Plan, in 1996 the judiciary completed
The Administration of Justice: A Strategic Business Plan for the
Federal Judiciary in accordance with the Judicial Amendments Act of
1994. It identified the following six strategic business areas and
establishes objectives for each: adjudication, administration of the
courts, supervision of defendants and offenders, defender services for
eligible criminal defendants, policy-making and national
administration, and rule-making.
The Strategic Business Plan provides a foundation for more specific
plans and planning processes. In particular, the Judicial Conference's
Committee on Automation and Technology, which oversees the judiciary
automation program, produces the Long Range Plan for Automation in the
Federal Judiciary. This document sets forth the mission, vision, and
goals, of the judiciary's information technology program and summarizes
the program's major initiatives.
Realizing the importance of input from all of the stakeholders who
have a part in the federal judiciary, the judiciary's strategic
planning process has included, from its inception, consultation with
state and federal judges, lawyers from all segments of the nation's
bar, officials of the executive and legislative branches, experienced
planners from public and private sectors, and members of the public. In
parallel with this outreach, internal stakeholders are regularly
contacted through surveys on current topics and through extensive
advisory and user groups on specific subject matters, such as courtroom
technology or training.
Over the past several years, the judiciary has made numerous
changes in program policy, organization structure, program content, and
work processes to become more results-oriented. The most notable
examples are the following:
Decentralization of critical functions to the courts.--A number of
critical administrative and management functions have been
decentralized to the courts. These functions are performed better
locally than centrally and decentralizing them greatly enhances local
managers' ability to focus on results. Two major decentralized
functions are budgeting and personnel:
--Budget decentralization.--As described further in the answer to the
next question, the judiciary switched several years ago to a
decentralized budgeting system in order to improve local
management flexibility, accountability, and decision-making and
to produce a more results-oriented environment.
--Decentralized personnel system.--Complementing the decentralized
budgeting environment, a decentralized personnel system was
recently implemented which improves local management of
personnel resources. The enhanced flexibility and decision-
making capabilities offered by this system allow managers to
optimally apply personnel resources and to achieve more
efficiently organizational goals and results.
Methods Analysis Program.--To help improve the results achieved by
court personnel on a day-to-day basis, the judiciary initiated the
Methods Analysis Program in 1994. This program identifies better
business practices that have the potential to result in more efficient
and effective operations. To date, several hundred practices have been
identified. This program contributes significantly to the judiciary's
ability to maintain high levels of service with reduced staffing
levels.
Information technology efforts.--The judiciary has undertaken a
comprehensive and forward-looking information technology program to
improve results. These efforts allow the judiciary to handle a
continuously growing caseload while, at the same time, minimizing
overall spending increases and maintaining services to the public.
Economy Subcommittee.--In 1993, the Judicial Conference established
an Economy Subcommittee of its Budget Committee. With a charter to
improve fiscal responsibility, accountability, and efficiency in the
judiciary, the subcommittee's efforts are a critical component of the
judiciary's overall effort to remain focused on end results.
Comprehensive strategic planning.--In 1996, the Judicial Conference
made additional changes in the Conference structure to enhance the
judiciary's planning apparatus. The Conference determined that
strategic planning should be an intrinsic part of each committee's
policy-making function rather than exclusively under a separate long
range planning committee. Thus, individual conference committees have
been given strategic planning responsibilities and have designated
committee members to serve as planning liaisons. In addition to
facilitating strategic planning within their committees, the liaisons
serve as an advisory group to the Judicial Conference's Executive
Committee.
Quarterly program and management-by-objective reviews.--As also
described further in the answer to next question, this recently
established program provides a quarterly forum to review the financial
and programmatic results of major judiciary programs.
Innovative local efforts.--Courts throughout the country develop
and implement productivity improvement programs and processes tailored
to their local cultures to improve results, save resources, provide
better public service and cope with staffing shortages.
The structure of the federal courts is decentralized. Unlike
business organizations that can enforce policies from the top down, the
federal court's work is carried out by judges whose independence is
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In an effort to hold local court
managers accountable and employ more efficient business practices, a
decentralized budgeting program was adopted for the courts in 1991.
Under this program, most budget execution functions are decentralized
to the local court level rather than conducted centrally at the
Administrative Office. This system gives local court managers an
incentive to identify and employ more efficient business practices, a
greater ability to prioritize scarce resources, and the flexibility to
distribute resources according to unique local needs. The system holds
managers accountable for their performance since they must accomplish
their mission within defined budgetary limits.
Several initiatives and aspects of our planning and budgeting
processes demonstrate how the judiciary bases planning and decision-
making on realistic assessments of projected resources. First, the Long
Range Plan recognizes that the near future will continue to be an era
of austerity as far as federal budgets are concerned, and that the
long-term future will require far more resource management by a federal
court system with an increasing workload and limited personnel and
other resources. The Plan also states, however, that the federal courts
must continue to seek the resources necessary to carry out its
constitutionally and congressionally-mandated responsibilities.
Second, in 1993, the Judicial Conference established an Economy
Subcommittee under its Committee on the Budget, providing the judiciary
with a mechanism akin to that provided by the Office of Management and
Budget in the executive branch. This action demonstrated the importance
of a permanent, analytical and systematic means of developing final
budget estimates that are consistent with both overall strategic plans
and projected resource levels. In addition to reviewing the judiciary's
budget submission, this group initiates and pursues studies concerning
ways to economize and to stimulate further change to a more results-
oriented way of conducting business. In the years ahead, the Judicial
Conference and its committees will continue to thoroughly scrutinize
funding requests from the various components of the judicial family
before they are submitted to Congress.
Third, each year the chairman of the Judicial Conference Committee
on the Budget issues a guidance letter to the chairmen of the program
committees of the Judicial Conference. This letter describes the
expected budget climate and sets forth the assumptions to be made in
constructing budget submissions. Furthermore, based upon these
assumptions, the chairman sets a target for the overall judiciary
budget increase that balances judiciary spending needs with the reality
of the fiscal environment.
subcommittee recess
Senator Gregg. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., Thursday, March 12, 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 1999
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Campbell, and Hollings.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. KENNARD, CHAIRMAN
ACCOMPANIED BY ANDREW FISHEL, MANAGING DIRECTOR
opening remarks
Senator Gregg. I will convene the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, and State, which is hearing this morning from the
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], and
then we will hear from the Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission [SEC], two agencies which come under this
committee's jurisdiction. I do not have an opening statement.
Do you?
Senator Hollings. No; thank you, sir.
Senator Gregg. So we will go right to you, Mr. Chairman.
opening statement of mr. kennard
Mr. Kennard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
Thank you for the opportunity to review with you the fiscal
year 1999 budget estimates for the Federal Communications
Commission. I am especially pleased to be here in my first
appearance as Chairman of the FCC since I took office 4 months
ago. With me is the FCC's Managing Director, Andrew Fishel.
I would like to summarize a few major points this morning
from my written testimony, and then, of course, take your
questions. And I would ask that my full statement be included
in the hearing record.
First, let me say that I think I speak for all of us at the
FCC in saying that we feel exceptionally privileged to be at
the agency at this time; working at an agency in an era of such
importance to the history of communications.
I believe that when people look back on this period of time
some years hence, they will remember it in the history of
communications as being about two fundamental transforming
events. One, the conversion from analog to digital technology;
and, two, the paradigm shift from monopoly regulation to
competition.
Both of these transforming forces--the transition to
competition and the conversion to digital--really challenge the
FCC to accommodate unprecedented and momentous change, and I am
confident that we can meet that challenge with your guidance
and support.
As I look ahead to the work of the agency over the next
several months, I think it is important that the Commission
resolve but three major issues I would like to talk about. All
are central to this transition from monopoly to competition,
and the conversion to digital technology.
One is implementing the universal service mandates of the
1996 act. Another is fostering competition in all
communications markets, but particularly in local telephone
markets. And third is resolving the unresolved issues in the
transition from analog to digital television.
As I set forth in my full statement, our chief policy goal
this year is to implement the procompetitive, deregulatory
national policy framework set forth in the 1996 act, and a
central focus of that will be reforming universal service.
Now, there are some people who believe that reforming
universal service, or the concept of universal service is
fundamentally inconsistent with the move to competitive
markets. I do not share that belief. I believe that the premise
of the 1996 act is that universal service and competitive
markets can coexist, but it is going to take a lot of work for
us to get there, work at both the Federal and State levels.
And I am committed to putting in the work, and making sure
that we work with our State partners, and you, in the Congress,
to make this very important transition.
It is also important that we finish implementing the
universal service provisions for the high-cost fund, and also
for schools and libraries and rural health care facilities.
I have heard your concerns about the implementation of the
schools and libraries mechanism. I have met with many Members
of Congress about that. Our staffs have met, and I want you to
know that you have my commitment to work with you, to resolve
your concerns, and make sure that this mechanism for funding
schools, libraries, and health care facilities is consistent
with your intent, and also works for the country.
Competition: as you can see from the chart that is attached
to my written submission, we are seeing some competition
develop in local phone markets. But I think it is important to
emphasize that competition is not going to develop in one surge
across all markets. It is going to develop faster in some
places than others. It is going to take more time than in
others.
We saw this in the long distance marketplace, which took
some time to develop competition, but it came. We saw this in
the cellular and wireless markets, and it took some time, but
it came.
And I believe that ultimately the forces of competition are
so powerful that they are really bigger than any law or any
agency or any court, and they will come. Our role is really to
foster them wherever and whenever we can.
It is not in my view a question of whether competition will
come, but really a question of when it will come.
As the FCC enters its third fiscal year since the enactment
of the 1996 act, fostering local competition in telephony will
be among our highest priorities. So we will be implementing the
section 271 process to permit Bell Operating Co. entry into in
region long distance.
And my vision here is for the FCC to make sure that this
process is one that is open and transparent, one that all of
the stakeholders understand how it works, and are involved in
the dialog with the agency, so we demystify the process so that
everyone understands what we are trying to accomplish.
But ultimately it is my belief that we must remain
consistent to congressional intent to insure that local
telephone markets are truly open before we allow BOC entry into
long distance.
Another important matter that I touched on earlier is
digital television. This transition from analog to digital
television is the most significant change in television history
in my view--much more significant than the transition from
black and white to color.
I believe the role of the FCC is to make sure that we take
the regulatory uncertainty out of the process. That means the
regulatory environment to govern this transition must clarify
what the public interest obligations are of television
broadcasters in the digital age.
And as we move toward more competitive markets across the
board, it is my vision for the agency that we redeploy our
resources. We should take resources away from application
processing functions and move them more to consumer protection
areas, because we have seen as competition develops, we have
more problems like slamming and cramming in telephone markets.
I would also like to see the agency continue its efforts to
move toward electronic filing. I believe this is a very, very
significant change for the agency. We have seen it already as
we have implemented electronic filing of applications for our
wireless services.
We have seen the way the public interacts with the agency
change dramatically. People around the country can get
information from the agency, and interact with the agency in
ways that makes it much easier for them to do business with us.
We get 227,000 hits on our website per day. So many more
people are communicating with the agency electronically than
ever before.
Let me just say in conclusion that the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 has already produced some important, tangible
results. There is much work left to be done, but if we work
together I am sure that we can accomplish much more, in
bringing more competition to consumers, reforming universal
service, and ultimately continuing to have a telecommunications
infrastructure that is the very best in the world, and of which
we can all be very proud of.
prepared statement
Your support of the Commission's fiscal year 1999 budget
request will help this vision become a reality, and I thank you
for your support, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Kennard
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to review with you today the fiscal year
1999 Budget Estimates of the Federal Communications Commission. I am
especially pleased to be here, as this is my first appearance before
the Subcommittee since I became Chairman on November 3, 1997.
This morning I would like to: summarize the highlights of our
fiscal year 1999 Budget Estimates; discuss what the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 has accomplished so far to achieve competition and what
remains to be done; note some examples of our other ongoing work
responsibilities; highlight our plans to streamline and deregulate the
FCC through the first ``biennial review'' of all of our regulations;
describe our ``Year 2000'' computer upgrade plans; and, finally, share
with you my hopes and plans for the rest of this year to implement the
Communications Act and the other statutes entrusted to the FCC.
Competition and Conversion
Before I discuss these matters, however, I think I speak for all of
us at the FCC in saying that we feel privileged to be working at the
Commission at this important time in the history of communications law
and policy. When the history of communications policy in this decade is
written, I believe it will largely be about two transforming events:
the move to embrace competition as an organizing principle in the law
and the conversion from analog to digital technology.
First and foremost, there is competition. Competition has been a
goal of communications policymakers for many years. With the 1996 Act,
it has become our national policy and the organizing force of much of
our work. The 1996 Act gives us the tools to accelerate the pace of
competition and, with your support and sufficient resources, I am
confident we will.
Second, there is digital conversion. Virtually every sector is
undergoing this transition: analog to digital radio; analog to digital
cellular networks; analog to digital telephone networks; and analog to
digital broadcast and cable television. The almost infinite versatility
and capacity of digital technology is giving consumers awe-inspiring
products and providing communications companies new ways to deliver
those products.
Together, these two transforming forces--competition and digital
conversion--challenge the FCC to accommodate unprecedented change. With
your support for the resources we are requesting today, I am confident
we can meet the challenge.
Recent Accomplishments
In fact, I am very proud of what we have already accomplished in my
first four and one-half months as Chairman of the FCC. Here are some
highlights of our recent accomplishments:
--In November 1997, at my first meeting as FCC Chairman, the
Commission revised its rules for foreign entry in light of the
World Trade Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications
Services, which took effect last month. We did so by adopting
companion telecommunications and satellite entry orders
liberalizing entry into the U.S. market for foreign-licensed
service providers while retaining competitive safeguards.
Implementation of the WTO Agreement will fundamentally alter
the competitive landscape of the global market in
telecommunications services, providing vast opportunities for
American industry. Increased competition in the international
market will also hasten the decline in international calling
rates. In November, we also proposed rules to implement the
Commission's new authority to auction certain mutually
exclusive broadcast licenses; streamlined the process for
reviewing and resolving formal complaints against
telecommunications carriers; and adopted policies that permit
non-U.S. licensed satellites to provide services in the United
States.
--In December 1997, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
to strengthen our program access rules in order to boost
competition with cable in the multichannel video marketplace;
we approved an order to ensure that 911 emergency calls will
work nationwide on all cellular telephones; we conducted the
first in a series of special en banc presentations, this one on
the status of competition in the multichannel video
marketplace; we launched a proceeding to determine the
appropriate methodology for assessing fees for ancillary and
supplemental services provided by digital broadcasters in
implementation of the Communications Act; and we announced our
first ever ``biennial review'' of the FCC's rules and
regulations in a common sense, comprehensive fashion.
--In January 1998, we released our fourth ``Annual Assessment of the
Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video
Programming,'' as required by Section 628(g) of the
Communications Act. A major finding of the report was that
cable still controls approximately 87 percent of the
multichannel video marketplace. I directed our Cable Services
Bureau to undertake a review of our cable rate regulations and
an investigation of the nature and causes of rising cable rates
and programming costs. We released our annual survey report on
cable industry prices pursuant to Section 623(k) of the
Communications Act. We also adopted price disclosure
requirements for away-from-home public telephone calls to help
end telephone price gouging by operator service providers.
--In February 1998, we adopted an NPRM to help us implement our new
Universal Licensing System for wireless radio services. This
initiative will automate our licensing and application
functions for these services with state of the art technology.
We are consolidating and streamlining our current 11 wireless
databases into one unified, integrated system, and reducing or
eliminating many of our existing rules. We also adopted final
rules, policies and channel assignments for the new video age
of digital television (DTV); adopted an order to further the
privacy rights of telecommunications customers; and proposed to
simplify and consolidate our service rules governing the Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service as well as sought comment on
whether we should impose alien ownership restrictions on the
DBS service, and possible DBS-cable cross-ownership
restrictions.
--In March 1998, so far, we have approved the revised voluntary
industry system for rating TV video programming and adopted
technical rules to implement the accompanying ``V-chip''
program blocking technology. These actions will help put these
important tools in the hands of American parents. We also
adopted a Notice of Inquiry to examine all of our major
broadcast ownership rules as part of our ``biennial review.''
I would like to turn now to our fiscal year 1999 budget request and
our future plans and policies.
Overview of fiscal year 1999 Budget Estimates
The Federal Communications Commission proposes a fiscal year 1999
budget of $212,977,000, and a staffing level of 2,105 full-time
equivalents (FTE's). This represents an increase of $26,463,000 over
the FCC's fiscal year 1998 funding level, but with no increase in
staffing. Approximately 51 percent of the increase, or $13,615,000,
would cover mandatory, uncontrollable cost increases for salaries and
benefits ($4,153,000), rent payments to the General Services
Administration (GSA) for the FCC's new headquarters in the Portals
Building ($8,412,000), Federal Protective Service increases ($527,000),
and inflationary increases to other contract services ($523,000).
The FCC's request also includes a request of $5,756,000 (22 percent
of the increase) for critical upgrades to the Commission's FCC's
information technology infrastructure. These resources are vital to
ensure that all of the Commission's information technology
infrastructure and licensing systems operate smoothly through the
transition to the Year 2000. Failure to make these upgrades would
seriously jeopardize Commission operations on January 1, 2000 with some
disruption occurring earlier.
We have also requested $975,000, or 4 percent of the fund increase,
to complete the implementation and maximize the effectiveness of the
FCC's National Call Center (``NCC'') in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and
to establish a satellite Call Center facility in Washington, D.C. These
resources will provide substantial cost savings by centralizing much of
the FCC's call handling into a central Call Center, as well as provide
improved FCC customer service through one centralized information
service.
An additional $6,117,000, or 23 percent of the requested increase,
represents the first installment repayment to reimburse GSA for its
costs in relocating FCC headquarters employees to a consolidated
building. In July 1997, the GSA agreed to provide funds to the FCC so
we could relocate to the Portals. This agreement stated the FCC should
seek reimbursement for GSA of all funds provided to the FCC under the
agreement during fiscal years 1997 through 2007. If appropriated, the
repayment of these funds to GSA would take place over a 10-year period
beginning in fiscal year 1999 and continuing through fiscal year 2008.
This 10-year plan for reimbursement covers expenditures by GSA for
building design and buildout, design and installation of information
systems architecture, and purchase of systems furniture.
The amount to be collected from regulatory fees would increase from
$162,523,000 in fiscal year 1998 to $172,523,000 in fiscal year 1999.
The President's fiscal year 1999 Budget, however, proposes a change to
our current appropriations language. This change would prevent the FCC,
as it would other regulatory agencies funded largely from regulatory
fees, from offsetting its total fiscal year 1999 appropriation through
regulatory fees. Instead, the Administration proposes in fiscal year
1999 that the FCC appropriation would be fully funded on a one-time
basis from the General Fund of the Treasury. The regulatory fees,
although collected in fiscal year 1999, would be unavailable for use by
the FCC until October 1, 1999 (fiscal year 2000).
With these requested resources, here are some examples of what we
hope to accomplish during the coming fiscal year in each of the FCC's
four primary activity areas: (1) authorization of service; (2) policy
implementation and rulemaking; (3) enforcement; and (4) public
information services.
Authorization of Service.--We will continue to promote efficient
and innovative licensing and authorization of services by meeting
established Speed of Disposal goals and by using auctions whenever
feasible to license or authorize telecommunications services quickly
and efficiently, including the auctioning of mutually exclusive
broadcast licenses pursuant to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In
fiscal year 1999, we will complete the deployment of electronic filing
capabilities for five of our largest licensing and registration systems
in the Cable Services, International, Mass Media, and Wireless
Telecommunications Bureaus, and in the Office of Engineering and
Technology. The FCC's experience to date with the new Universal
Licensing System for its wireless radio services demonstrates the
benefits to both the Commission and industry from automation and
electronic filing. We also intend to process applications to construct
digital TV stations which conform to their original allotment sites
within five days of receipt. In addition, we anticipate a significant
number of applications under Section 271 of the Communications Act from
Bell Operating Companies seeking authority to provide in-region long
distance service, each of which must be resolved within 90 days.
Finally, we will simplify and streamline the entire broadcast licensing
process by reducing filing burdens, simplifying application forms, and
re-engineering and integrating 13 Mass Media Bureau licensing and
authorization of service databases.
Policy Implementation and Rulemaking.--We will encourage
competition in the telecommunications industry through pro-competitive,
deregulatory rulemakings, that reduce consumer costs and increase the
telecommunications choices available to consumers. For example, we must
also continue to implement the local competition provisions of the
Communications Act, review, revise, and eliminate rules to reflect
changing marketplace conditions, including forebearing from rules that
competition makes unnecessary to protect the public interest, and
review requests for preemption of state and local laws or actions that
create barriers to offering any telecommunications service. We will
also continue working to implement the universal service provisions of
the Communications Act by working to improve the connections between
the Internet and this country's classrooms, libraries, and rural health
care facilities, by maintaining affordable telecommunications services
to rural America, by making telecommunications services and equipment
accessible to all persons with disabilities, and by making emergency
information carried on cable systems available to all persons with
hearing disabilities.
We will continue to implement the World Trade Organization Basic
Services Agreement. This Agreement will allow carriers from WTO-member
nations to apply for authorization to provide competitive
telecommunications services to United States customers and will open
doors to United States carriers seeking to offer telecommunications in
overseas markets. We will also seek to ensure that public safety groups
have adequate spectrum and advanced telecommunications equipment by
completing the development of operational, technical and spectrum
requirements for meeting Federal, State and local public safety agency
communications requirements through the year 2010. We will continue to
explore all means of promoting competition in the marketplace for
multichannel video programming.
Enforcement.--The importance of the enforcement of the Commission's
rules has increased in an era of deregulation and increased
competition. Common carrier oversight, for example, is required to
ensure that consumer abuses such as the unauthorized transfer of long
distance carriers, also known as ``slamming'', are curtailed. We are
also examining ways to strengthen enforcement of our cable program
access rules so that new market entrants can more readily and fairly
obtain access to the programming they need to become viable competitors
to incumbent multichannel video programming distributors. Moreover,
increased use of the radio spectrum and the marketing of new electronic
equipment have greatly increased potential interference problems. There
has also been an increase in unauthorized ``pirate'' radio stations.
Overall, it is important for the Commission to adopt a new paradigm
for enforcement that relies more on companies to certify that they are
in compliance with our regulations, but with increased enforcement for
non-compliance. Swift, predictable, and sufficient enforcement is
critical as we move toward competition.
We also intend to strengthen our enforcement program by using the
latest technical and engineering techniques to improve interference and
consumer complaint resolution, by partnering with the private sector
and with other governmental units to resolve shared telecommunications
issues, and by using industry and customer feedback to determine
effective levels of enforcement and appropriate enforcement policies
and procedures.
Public Information Services.--Our goal in this area will be to
provide information services to our customers in the most useful
formats available and in the most timely, accurate and courteous manner
possible. We will accomplish this goal by providing ``one stop''
information shopping to our customers through the consolidation of our
nine public reference rooms into one, when we move to the Portals, and
through attaining true nationwide coverage at our National Call Center.
In fiscal year 1999, we hope to complete the final phase of this
ambitious project which provides information on every aspect of the FCC
through a toll-free number that can be accessed by anyone within the
United States, 1-888-CALL FCC (225-5322). Since the FCC began limited
operation of the NCC in June, 1996, it has responded to more than
485,000 telephone inquiries. Establishment of the NCC has already saved
the FCC approximately $3 million per fiscal year in salary and benefits
costs and allowed for the reallocation of 40 FTE's to other critical
work assignments. The NCC, along with the FCC's Internet Website,
www.fcc.gov, forms the backbone of the FCC's educational and
information outreach programs. (During January and February 1998, the
FCC's Home Page received an average of 227,000 hits per day, up from an
average of 135,000 hits per day during the same period in 1997.) It is
therefore essential for the FCC to complete the final phase of its
implementation of the NCC in fiscal year 1999. To do so, we request
your approval of our $975,000 fiscal year 1999 budget request item.
Telecommunications Act of 1996
I turn now to what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
accomplished in its first two years to achieve telecommunications
competition and what work remains to be done to achieve still more
competition. Some critics have already declared the 1996
Telecommunications Act a failure. I think they are wrong. For in my
judgment, Congress got it right in 1996: competition beats monopoly
every time as the best way to deliver the best telecommunications
services to the American public. And the evidence is growing that
competition is indeed on its way. As was amply demonstrated during the
Commission's January 29, 1997, en banc hearing on the status of local
telephone competition, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has
successfully moved us in the right direction--toward greater
competition.
Competition will happen, eventually. The debate about competitive
issues is really a debate about when it will happen, and for whom. It
will come faster, of course, if we have rules that favor competition.
Such rules would allow competition as fast as technology and financing
allow.
As you can see from the chart attached to my testimony entitled
``Market Shares of New Entrants to an Industry'', it has taken time for
competition to develop in other markets we today regard as competitive.
For example, in the long distance and residential cellular service
markets, it took years between the introduction of competition into the
market, and the time that new entrants had gained appreciable market
share.
For the reality is that moving a monopoly market to competition is
hard work: for the incumbent, the new competitors, and the policy
makers. Those within companies charged with creating and meeting
competition need to resolve complex operational issues. They need to
design system interfaces and write software. They need to negotiate
contracts, arbitrate differences, sign agreements and implement them.
For policy makers, we must insist that this hard work be done and that
the parties create or have available swift, meaningful ways to enforce
obligations under these agreements.
All this takes time. And while some call it ``regulatory,'' it is
actually deregulatory. That's because competition and choice won't
exist unless local telephone companies create this competitive
infrastructure and unless they are forced to keep this infrastructure
well-maintained and running smoothly.
Development of Competition: Slow But Steady
To get a true picture of the development of local competition, we
should not be looking for dramatic, sudden upsurges in local
competition, but instead for the type of steadily increasing momentum
that we saw with the introduction of competition into the long distance
market. As illustrated by the chart, we are still in the very early
stages of the development of local exchange competition. I have no
reason to expect, however, we will not see the same type of
acceleration of competition in this area that we have seen in other
markets, especially long distance and cellular.
In fact, that's exactly what we are seeing. Illustrative examples
are many and varied. We see growing competition in the hundreds of
state-approved interconnection agreements between incumbents and
competitive local exchange carriers (``CLECS'') entering the local
telephone market. The top 10 CLECS have switches in 132 cities spanning
33 states and the District of Columbia. Approximately 2,400
interconnection agreements have been created under the 1996 Act's
framework. And over the past two years, $14 billion has been invested
in CLECS, and their combined market capitalization has risen to over
$20 billion.
We also see competition in New York City where over 20 percent of
the local business market is being served by carriers other than the
incumbent Bell Company. We see competition in the investment going into
cable modems and the restructuring of the high speed data segment of
the cable industry. We see growing competition in the increasing
interest on the part of the wireline industry in Digital Subscriber
Line technologies, which allow you to get expanded capacity similar to
fiber from a copper loop. We see it in the fixed wireless service
providers, like Winstar and Teligent which have begun to offer service
that competes with traditional wireline. And we see it in the hundreds
of satellites being put up for narrowband access and also for
nationwide, even worldwide broadband wireless data access.
The country is seeing many other benefits of the 1996 Act. For
example, wireless telephone prices are dropping rapidly and the number
of subscribers now tops 50 million nationwide. In the nine months from
April to December 1997, prices for cellular and PCS services dropped
over 12 percent for low volume customers and over 31 percent for high
volume customers. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported on March 3,
1998 that Bell Atlantic's recent decision to reduce by 15 percent its
rates for digital wireless phone service may well spark a ``price war''
among cell phone service providers. Long distance rates, meanwhile,
fell 5.3 percent between January 1996 and November 1997.
The 1996 Act is beginning to deliver other benefits as well. On
January 30, 1998, schools and libraries began to submit applications to
the Schools and Libraries Corporation for universal service support to
connect our nation's classrooms and libraries to the Internet. As of
March 5, 1998, 25,600 applications for universal service discounts had
been received from schools and libraries. Nearly 70 percent of these
applications are for new services. As of February 24, 50 percent of
applications received have been from school districts, 28 percent from
schools, 19 percent from libraries and library consortiums, and 3
percent from multiple entity consortiums. The Schools and Libraries
Corporation will be processing and granting these applications later
this spring, well before the start of the next school year in the fall.
This is measurable progress. Of course, we have much further to go
to reap the full benefits of the 1996 Act. In particular, too few
residential consumers yet have the opportunity to choose among
competing providers of local exchange services. There are some
promising prospects as cable companies and companies affiliated with
utility companies begin to provide residential, local telephone
service, but competition has yet to blossom in the residential market.
Moreover, the courts have clearly slowed the pace of development of
competition. We have seen the careful statutory design of Congress
disrupted by judicial rulings that have added uncertainty, slowed
investment and planning, and frustrated promising market entry
strategies. Without these judicial setbacks, we would be further along
the road to full competition in telecommunications. These court
decisions threaten to continue to hobble the development of competition
and to deny our country the growth that broad telecommunications
competition would create.
Nonetheless, as the FCC enters its third fiscal year since
enactment of the 1996 Act, implementation of the Act's remaining
provisions in a pro-competitive and timely fashion will remain the
principal FCC task. Most significantly, the FCC will continue to
examine how to streamline the process of evaluating Bell Operating
Company petitions for entry into in-region inter-LATA toll service. As
directed by our fiscal year 1998 appropriations legislation, we have
also begun a review of the statutory, definitional and universal
service provisions of the 1996 Act, and will submit a report to
Congress no later than the statutory deadline of April 10, 1998.
We will also work closely with the States to continue to implement
the universal service provisions of the Act, commence a proceeding to
delineate further operating support systems to propose performance
assessment and reporting mechanisms, establish rules for the recovery
of costs for long-term number portability, outline pricing flexibility
for local exchange carriers as they face new competition, and address
the appropriate regulatory treatment of commercial mobile radio service
carriers who provide fixed or combined fixed-mobile services.
We also expect later this year to issue a Notice of Inquiry
pursuant to Section 706 of the 1996 Act concerning the availability of
advanced telecommunications capabilities, to commence a proceeding to
identify and reduce or eliminate market entry barriers, and to conclude
a proceeding on broadcast spectrum flexibility.
Other, Ongoing Workload
Our continuing, heavy workload to implement the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 is a major justification for our fiscal year 1999 budget
request. But so are the Commission's other enormous and growing work
responsibilities. Here are just a few illustrative examples from five
of the FCC's operating bureaus:
Cable Services Bureau.--As of March 1998, the Consumer Protection
and Competition Division of the Cable Services Bureau had 583 matters
pending before the division, including petitions, complaints, and
rulemakings. These matters are overwhelmingly filed by private parties
or local governments. Among these petitions and complaints, for
example, are approximately 80 mandatory signal carriage or ``must-
carry'' cases, 73 requests to modify ``areas of dominant influence'' to
receive different television programming, and over 260 rate regulation
appeals. The Financial Analysis and Compliance Division of the Bureau,
meanwhile, had approximately 750 rate complaints pending. (Between
September 1993 and February 1996, the division issued 4,553 rate case
decisions.)
Common Carrier Bureau.--The Common Carrier Bureau expects to make
policy recommendations to the Commission on over 60 major, Commission-
level proceedings in the second quarter of 1998 alone. This figure does
not include any number of Bureau-level proceedings that the Bureau will
complete during the same three month period. One telecommunications
area in particular that has exploded as a result of both more
competition and deregulation has been informal complaints and
inquiries. In 1995, for example, the Enforcement Division of the Common
Carrier received 25,482 complaints and inquiries about various
telephone consumer abuses and concerns such as ``slamming'' and
disputed billing charges. In 1997, the number of such complaints nearly
doubled to over 44,000.
International Bureau.--The International Bureau plans to present to
the Commission 27 items between April and September 1998. Two major
growth areas for the Bureau include satellite space station
applications and Section 214 applications. The number of applications
received for satellite space stations increased from 164 in fiscal year
1996 to 195 in fiscal year 1997 (a 19 percent increase). The number of
Section 214 applications received for satellite space stations
increased from 564 in fiscal year 1995 to 637 in fiscal year 1996 (a 13
percent increase). In fiscal year 1997, the number of Section 214
applications received increased 17 percent to 745.
In addition to the increase in the number of applications over the
years, there is more complexity involved in processing International
Bureau applications. Service providers are developing innovative
services, requiring significantly more bandwidth, and at the same time
seeking to co-exist with established services while sometimes also
requiring global coordination.
These new services additionally require the Bureau to initiate
licensing rounds, develop service rules and, in most instances,
coordinate with other domestic users of the spectrum. Just getting one
new service off the ground is extremely time and labor intensive as it
invariably raises new legal issues and poses technical challenges. The
Bureau currently has four new services--2 GHz, 28 GHz, 40 GHz and the
Skybridge FSS LEO system--for which proceedings must be initiated and
completed prior to commercial satellite use of the spectrum. Finally,
the International Bureau also must develop methods for implementing the
recent commitments made to open the United States market to foreign
satellite systems.
Mass Media Bureau.--In the Mass Media Bureau, the elimination of
radio ownership limits by the Telecommunications Act dramatically
increased the volume of radio sales applications. For example, in 1995,
we received 2,300 such applications. In 1996 the number increased to
3,700. In 1997, it was more than 4,100. During the first three months
of 1998, radio sales applications have continued to come to the FCC at
a higher rate than even in 1997. In another mass media area, political
programming regulation, because this is a mid-term election year,
during the next six months we expect to receive approximately 1,000
phone calls a month from broadcasters, political candidates and their
media buyers.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.--Finally, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau intends to bring to the Commission for its
decision approximately 56 items over the next six months. The Bureau
also plans to conduct six auctions during the rest of 1998, assuming
the Commission completes the pending policy and rulemaking items. As of
February 28, 1998, the Wireless Bureau has pending 448 informal
complaints and 13 formal ones. The enormity of the ``Universal
Licensing System'' noted above is also worth noting in more detail. The
``ULS'' is simply a complete change and redesign of the Wireless
Bureau's entire licensing theory and process. It will directly affect
the literally millions of wireless licensees, applicants, and the
public who need access to our wireless data. Under the ULS: 41 forms
will be collapsed into 5; 800,000 person hours annually will be saved
by licensees due to electronic filing of applications; 11 databases
will be reduced into one, affecting over 2 million licensees; on line
data access and computer mapping of service areas will be available to
the public from anywhere in the world; and perhaps most significantly,
the FCC will be able to delete over 200 wireless regulations from the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Streamlining and Deregulating: The ``Biennial Review''
In fact, the FCC has begun a comprehensive ``biennial review'' of
all of its existing regulations, including telecommunications and
broadcast ownership regulations, as directed by the 1996 Act. Section
11 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act,
requires the FCC, in every even-numbered year, to review all of its
regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications services to
determine whether they have become unnecessary to advance the public
interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between
providers of the services and whether such regulations should therefore
be repealed or modified. Section 204(h) of the Telecommunications Act
also requires the Commission to review its broadcast ownership rules
biennially as part of the review conducted pursuant to Section 11. The
Commission, however, determined that this first biennial regulatory
review presented an excellent opportunity for a serious top-to-bottom
examination of all the Commission's regulations, not just those
required to be reviewed under the statute.
Thus, on February 5, 1998, Commission staff released a list of 31
proposed proceedings to be initiated as part of the 1998 biennial
regulatory review aimed at eliminating or modifying regulations that
are overly burdensome or no longer in the public interest. The list,
which is attached to my testimony, was compiled following a broad,
comprehensive internal review of all existing FCC regulations and
informal input from the industry and the public through various public
forums such as brown bag lunches with the practice groups of the
Federal Communications Bar Association. The Commission will continue to
solicit public input as the process continues.
The list includes a review of all broadcast ownership rules that
are not already the subject of a pending Commission proceeding and a
wide array of common carrier rules, such as the Part 32 uniform system
of accounts rules, Part 41 telegraph and telephone franks (or free
service) rules, Part 43 reporting rules, Part 61 price cap rules, Part
62 interlocking directorate rules, Part 63 international certificate
rules, Part 64 customer premises equipment bundling rules, and Part 68
equipment rules.
We have outlined here a very ambitious agenda for the Commission
that should result in a substantial amount of further deregulation and
streamlining. The Commission is in a position to ensure that its first
biennial regulatory review will, consistent with congressional mandate,
produce concrete results in many areas of the Commission's operations.
I would also note that, in addition to those proceedings to be
initiated as part of the 1998 biennial regulatory review, the
Commission has numerous ongoing proceedings that are consistent with
the deregulatory and streamlining policy embodied in Section 11 of the
Communications Act. For example, the Commission has ongoing proceedings
to review and possibly reconsider its rules governing jurisdictional
separations procedures under Part 36, extensions of lines under Part
63, cost allocations under Part 64, and access charges under Part 69.
The streamlining and simplification of the broadcast licensing process
noted above is another example of the extensive deregulatory
``housecleaning'' now underway at the Commission.
``Year 2000'' Plans
It is well known that computer systems throughout the world may
well have difficulties transitioning from the year 1999 to the year
2000. The FCC has completed a thorough analysis of our institutional
systems, end-user applications and database infrastructure. We have
concluded that we must complete a major upgrade and replacement of many
of our computer systems, including both hardware and supporting
software, if the agency is to be Year 2000-compliant.
The FCC systems which have been identified as having significant
Year 2000 compliance issues include our applications processing, fees
collection, tariff tracking and public comment filing systems. For each
of these systems, we have completed requirements studies to replace
them with restructured and, in many cases, integrated, state-of-the-art
electronic filing and relational database systems. The restructured
Year 2000-compliant systems will offer the added benefit of allowing
the FCC's customers to view electronically and transmit data over the
Internet. The fiscal year 1999 funding request of $5,765,000 is
required to ensure that all of our computer systems are fully tested
and operational before December, 1999. In addition, we will need to use
$3.4 million in excess fiscal year 1997 regulatory fees carried over to
fiscal year 1998 for this purpose.
While we replace our non-compliant systems, we must also replace
our aging and obsolete desktop hardware and software systems. In fiscal
year 1999, many of our personal computers will be over six years old,
twice the age of their expected usage lives. Our current desktop
configurations can neither accommodate the larger, faster computer
applications available, nor are they, in many cases, Year 2000-
compliant. Moreover, it is currently either impossible or exorbitantly
expensive to maintain them and it is imperative, operationally and
fiscally, to replace them.
With the requested resources, the FCC will be able to develop and
implement Year 2000-compliant electronic filing systems and associated
support technologies that will result in several benefits: continued
system functionality beyond December 31, 1999; accurate calculations of
date-dependent algorithms; enabling the public to transmit and view
application, licensing and other needed data electronically over the
Internet; and increased public availability and ease of obtaining and
receiving docket, rulemaking, and tariff information.
1998 Agenda
For the rest of this year, our agenda will be dominated by our
efforts to implement the 1996 Act's ``pro-competitive, deregulatory
national policy framework,'' to bring greater competition to all
communications markets, and to ensure that universal service and other
public interest provisions of the Act are fully implemented in a manner
that, consistent with congressional intent, yield the best results for
the American people. At the head of my priorities will be the effort to
deliver choice in telecommunications, especially local
telecommunications, to the American people. We must especially strive
to see that choice among local telephone providers becomes a reality
for more residential subscribers.
Giving consumers the opportunity to enjoy the lower prices and
expanded choice that flow from competition requires that we continue to
review carefully the applications by the Bell Operating Companies under
Section 271 of the Communications Act requesting authorization to
provide in-region long distance service. Our on-going dialogue with the
BOC's and other interested parties is intended to expedite the opening
of local markets, thus leading to competition not only for local phone
service, but also BOC entry into the long distance market under Section
271. But it is crucial that a BOC satisfy the statutory checklist
contained in Section 271 before it is permitted to enter the long
distance market. For if a BOC is permitted to offer long distance
service before it has opened its local market to competition, then
merger and consolidation will be the only avenues into the local market
available to the long distance carriers and other potential
competitors. Giving the BOC's a free pass into long distance would thus
produce fewer, not more, competitors, and be contrary to Congress'
legislative intent in enacting Section 271, one of the most significant
provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
We must continue to find ways to ensure that rates remain
affordable, and to ensure that telecommunications services remain
comparable in all areas of the country. This is a critical issue.
Universal service has been a hallmark of our telecommunications system
since the invention of the telephone. We must continue to preserve and
enhance universal service as competition increases. We cannot allow
rural America to become a ``have not'' zone in the telecommunications
age. To help ensure this does not happen, and to help ensure universal
service for all, in early January, 1998, I appointed an ``ombudsman''
for the Commission on rural issues. She will help us make sure that
rural issues receive the focus and attention they deserve from the
Commission. In addition, we will address universal service high cost
issues for non-rural telcos in two steps, with an order on a mechanism
for estimating forward looking costs in the very near term, and with an
order on input for that mechanism and other implementation issues by
the end of the third quarter.
We will also continue to work to deliver universal service to our
nation's classrooms and libraries, and to connect these centers of
learning to the Internet. We must also finish implementing ways to
provide rural health care providers access to modern telecommunications
facilities to allow better, faster diagnoses and treatments.
We will continue to seek ways to increase competition with cable
television, and to assess the nature and causes of cable programming
cost increases and whether they indicate a need to revise our cable
rate regulation. As I noted on January 13, 1998, when we released our
fourth annual cable competition report, I remain concerned that
competition will not arrive in time to provide a true marketplace
restraint on cable price increases by March 1999, when all cable rate
regulation is scheduled to end pursuant to the Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
We must also finish the implementation of digital television. This
includes the establishment of not just the service rules and allotment
plans, but also must-carry rules, public interest obligations, and fees
for ancillary and supplemental services.
We will also continue to work closely with our Local and State
Government Advisory Committee to address Federal-state-local issues
such as preemption, placement of transmission towers for wireless and
DTV services, public rights-of-way, and removal of state and local
governmental barriers to telecommunications market entry.
We must also continue to streamline our licensing procedures and to
act as expeditiously as possible to ensure that innovative new
technologies using satellites can enter the marketplace quickly. For
example, the first wave of new global satellite systems capable of
providing high speed voice, video and data on-demand are scheduled to
start providing service this fall.
Along with its appetite for ever-increasing computing power, our
nation will have an ever more voracious appetite for data transmission
capacity or ``bandwidth.'' The key to satisfying this appetite will be
to create real opportunities for companies to compete to deliver high
bandwidth services over the ``last mile'' to consumers. Competition in
our backbone networks today is driving backbone providers to keep
increasing the capacity and speed of the backbones. We need to bring
that competitive drive to expand capacity and improve service to the
final links to consumers.
Finally, throughout all of our proceedings, we must seek to ensure
that our booming communications markets are creating opportunities for
participation by all Americans. We must move forward to ensure that we
are providing opportunities for employment, access and ownership,
especially for those who remain underrepresented in the ownership and
employment ranks of communications businesses--minorities, women and
the disabled. The communications and information industries represent
the fastest growing sectors of our economy--over $800 billion last
year. We should seek to create and expand opportunities in every sector
of the communications marketplace and do all we can to make sure that
no one is left behind.
With regard to the disability community, for example, last August,
the Commission adopted rules to increase the amount of closed captioned
video programming available to the 22 million Americans with hearing
disabilities, regardless of whether they receive their television
signals from cable, DBS, wireless cable or through over-the-air
broadcasting. This is a vitally important step in making sure that
disabled Americans get access. I also intend to initiate soon a major
rulemaking proceeding under Section 255 of the Communications Act to
facilitate access to telecommunications equipment by disabled persons.
Conclusion
I'd like to conclude my testimony with these thoughts. It has been
only two years since President Clinton went to the magnificent Reading
Room of the Library of Congress and signed his name to the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was a very appropriate location for
such a signing ceremony. For here was a bill Congress had just passed
that could eventually help make every book in the Library of Congress
available to every American with a few clicks of a computer ``mouse.''
Not everyone was confident that the President was doing the right
thing. Not everyone was confident that Congress had done the right
thing. Not everyone was confident that the FCC could handle the job of
implementing such ambitious legislation.
But now, after 25 months, I think it's clear that we should have
been confident on all counts. For after these 25 months, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 has produced important, tangible
results. Yes, there is much left to be done. But if we work together,
we will accomplish it. We will succeed in fulfilling the promise of the
Telecommunications Act to bring competition and choice to American
consumers, to bring advanced services at affordable rates to all
Americans, to bring new economic opportunity that can unite our Nation
and narrow the gaps that divide us, and to improve our country in
fundamental ways unimagined just two years ago. Your support of the
Commission's fiscal year 1999 budget request will help this vision
become a solid reality.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer your
questions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T11MA19.000
Biographical Sketch of William E. Kennard
William Kennard was nominated to be Chairman of the FCC by
President Clinton in August 1997. He was confirmed by the Senate on
October 29, and sworn in by Vice President Gore on November 7, 1997.
His term expires on June 30, 2001.
As Chairman, Kennard is committed to ensuring that competition will
bring consumers in every sector of the communications marketplace more
choice, better services, and faster innovation at the lowest prices.
A native of Los Angeles, Kennard graduated Phi Beta Kappa from
Stanford University in 1978 and received his law degree from Yale Law
School in 1981.
Kennard came to the Chairmanship after three-and-one-half years as
the agency's General Counsel and a career as a practicing attorney
involved in a broad range of communications issues.
As FCC General Counsel, Kennard served as the Commission's
principal legal advisor and represented the Commission in court. He
served as General Counsel during a particularly challenging time, as
the FCC began its implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Before joining the FCC, Kennard was a partner and member of the
board of directors of the Washington, DC, law firm of Verner, Liipfert,
Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. At Verner, Liipfert, he specialized in
communications law, with an emphasis on regulatory and transactional
matters for communications companies.
Before entering private law practice, Kennard served as Assistant
General Counsel and as Legal Fellow for the National Association of
Broadcasters. He has written several articles on communications law
topics.
Throughout his career, Kennard has advocated creating and expanding
opportunities for small businesses and minority-owned businesses to
participate in the communications marketplace. In the 1980's he served
on the FCC's Advisory Committee on Minority Ownership in Broadcasting.
He is the first African-American to chair the FCC.
Kennard is a member of the District of Columbia and California Bars
and has served as Treasurer, Secretary, and Assistant Secretary of the
Federal Communications Bar Association.
He is married to Deborah Diane Kennedy of Greenville, South
Carolina. She is Managing Counsel at Mobile Corporation. They live in
the District of Columbia.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. 227,000 hits?
Mr. Kennard. Yes; per day.
free air time for Political candidates
Senator Hollings. You are doing a good job, but let me ask
you about this free time issue so we can clear the air.
With respect to us in the Congress, we set down the policy,
and you administer it, isn't that right?
Mr. Kennard. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hollings. And until we give you that policy you do
not administer it, you do not pick one out of the air like free
time. Where did you get it? We have not passed anything. I have
been up here 31, going on 32 years. I have heard about free
time back in the early 1970's. But, the Congress has not set
any policy relative to free time, and I understand you made a
statement that if the Congress would not create such a policy,
you would. Can you respond to that? I want to make it clear
that we have to get back to ground rules here and fundamentals.
You have a big enough headache with digital. You have a big
enough headache with the 1996 act without wandering afar and
picking out desirables, but not policies, of the Congress.
Mr. Kennard. Well, let me say this, Senator. The FCC was
delegated responsibilities in this area----
Senator Hollings. When? What? How?
Mr. Kennard. Well, in the----
Senator Hollings. For free time?
Mr. Kennard. The FCC was given responsibility 25 years ago
to administer the lowest unit charge provisions of the act.
Senator Hollings. Yes; but that had to do with individuals.
That did not have anything to do with candidates. That had to
do with the charges made. And that has not been amended.
If you are going to give free time on every particular
charge, say Senator Gregg and I run against each other, we
charge each other, you will be giving us free time when there
is not enough free time left with a particular station. You
know that. It's a stretch, and you know it.
Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, the public interest mandate of
the----
Senator Hollings. No; the public interest is expressed by
the Congress. And they have not expressed free time as a public
interest. You might think so. I might think so, but the
Congress has not said that is a matter of public interest.
Mr. Kennard. Senator, there are some 80 Members of Congress
who----
Senator Hollings. Eighty Members can put in a bill and get
it passed. Eighty Members are a minority. Eighty Members are
not a majority. They know how to put in a bill. They know how
to get three readings in the House and three readings in the
Senate, as a policy. After they do that, you can administer it.
You are wandering afar, picking out policies you would like
to see--you are not a popularity contest. You are not in the
legislature. I'm in the Congress. I can put in a bill. But you
are not in the position of putting in bills. You have enough
laws to administer.
Where do you get the authority?
Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, it is my view that there is
authority.
Senator Hollings. Where?
Mr. Kennard. Well, let me give you an example.
Senator Hollings. Give me a law. Give me the policy that we
set.
Mr. Kennard. For example, there are rules on the FCC's
books that have been upheld by the courts that have changed
policies, adopted new policies in this area. The political
editorializing, rule, for example. Personal attack rule.
Senator Hollings. Yes; we have not set that as a policy. It
has been debated, like you say. Eighty Members are vitally
interested in it. The administration is. But they have not put
in a bill.
Mr. Kennard. That is true.
Senator Hollings. In fact, the bills that have been put in
have been defeated. You are stretching way afar, I can tell you
that, and that is exactly where you get into trouble. You get
into appeals, and lawyers, and costs and everything else like
that.
So let's restrict yourself to trying to do the job we give
you to do, not what you think.
Mr. Kennard. Well, it is not just what I think, Senator.
Many people----
Senator Hollings. It is what the Congress thinks. It is not
what I think, either. In fact, I actually refrain from calling
you, because I was incidental to the 1996 act. Have I ever
called you about the 1996 act?
Mr. Kennard. No, Senator, but I have called you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. Yes; that is exactly right. I never have
called you, because I get lawyers downtown thinking all they
have to do is call a Member to call the Commission. Call a
Member to call the Commission. And we would be driving you nuts
down there, and I try my best to let you administer the law.
But then I see you wandering afar with a nonpolicy that you
might think or I might think is good, so let us get that fixed
right now.
Portals relocation funding
Now, to another point, you do not have enough money to move
to the Portals, is that right?
Mr. Kennard. That is right. We have requested money in our
appropriations to resolve that issue, so that we have some
clarity as to whether we should move or not.
Senator Hollings. That is right. You are ready to move, if
they give you the money.
Mr. Kennard. If it is the wish of Congress that we move, as
expressed through the appropriations process, we will move.
Senator Hollings. And if you do not get the money, how are
you going to move? You are going to have to eat into your
regular administrative budget.
Mr. Kennard. It would be imprudent for the FCC to move
without having funds appropriated for the move.
Universal service fund
Senator Hollings. I agree with you. All right, with respect
to the implementation of the universal service fund, and
education, I think it is good for the committee and everyone to
know that fundamental to universal service is serving the rural
areas and the less settled areas.
You have the Senator from Alaska, who depends on the
universal service entirely, for example, up there. The Midwest
and some of the Western States also heavily rely on this. There
was a grave misgiving in the debates, relative to universal
service, when it came to education, the schools, and hospitals,
that they do not eat into the funds used to keep rates low for
rural areas.
I refereed that with what we called the farm team, over and
over again we got it in. Now, right to the point, many think
you went way too far, with too much money, to wire the
Internet. And what we have to do is reconcile that to schools
and hospitals, because the fundamental, of course, is a
universal service fund to begin with.
Mr. Kennard. Well, as I said in my opening statement,
Senator, I have had many conversations with you and other
Members here about that, about the implementation of that fund.
I think I understand your concerns. I have seen the
amendment that was proffered with the supplemental
appropriations bill the other day, and I think you asked some
very good questions about trying to get a handle on the basic
facts, of how much this is going to cost, and how this is going
to be administered.
And I look forward to working with you and your staffs to
make sure that we have a program that is consistent with
congressional intent and works for the country.
Senator Hollings. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
free air time for Political candidates
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings. I am going to
ask my questions after Senator Campbell, but I do want to
follow up on one point you made, and this is the free time
issue, since you have raised this issue.
Senator Campbell. Senator Hollings did not leave any room
for the rest of us.
Senator Gregg. Yes, well, let me just say, though, that
Senator Hollings in his very cordial southern ways has
graciously told you to stay out of this issue until Congress
acts. I will, in my understated New England way, deliver to you
the same message.
This committee and this Congress has not acted on the issue
of free time. You do not have the authority to pursue the issue
of free time. If you pursue the issue of free time, you will be
stepping on the prerogative of the Congress. And to do that
would be, in my opinion, an extreme error for the Commission.
You have a lot of big issues. We want to support you. I
think you are off to a good start in a lot of areas. But to
pursue this activity will regrettably create great tension,
undermine your capacity to do your job well, and undermine the
Commission.
Senator Campbell.
Slamming
Senator Campbell. Mr. Chairman, I will not even address
that, because westerners are not that subtle. Let me maybe just
say something about slamming, since you did, Commissioner.
Senator Burns has moved some language forward, as you
probably know, dealing with slamming. We did a couple of
hearings--did one in Colorado. I was, frankly, amazed at the
huge growth of this unethical practice of transferring your
telephone service without your knowledge or permission between
companies.
I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions. One is,
where does that process stand now? Because that hearing we did
in Colorado, I understand from people who testified on your
behalf, that they were making some major rule changes.
Senator Hollings. Would the Senator yield?
Senator Campbell. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. We unanimously reported out of the
Commerce Committee a bill--are you familiar with that bill?
Senator Campbell. Yes, I am. The bill I introduced was
incorporated into that bill.
Senator Hollings. Right.
Senator Campbell. And Senator Burns' too. But I wanted to
know, where is the regulatory process now, what specific
initiatives has the Commission taken to try to curtail that
practice?
Mr. Kennard. Certainly. Well, Senator, first of all, let me
say I share your concern about the slamming problem.
Senator Campbell. And also, when are the rules going to be
released?
Mr. Kennard. Certainly. I share your concern about
slamming. It has developed into a serious problem. There was a
time in this country, as you know, when you only had a choice
of one long distance carrier. Now that we have many more
choices, some unscrupulous operators are trying to get business
in inappropriate ways through slamming.
The FCC has taken some action in this area, and plans to
take more action. In 1995, we issued rules that eliminated the
practice of telephone companies sending out sweepstakes
announcements or other inducements, and people inadvertently
changing their long distance carrier through that way.
And that has helped, but we still get too many complaints.
We get more complaints on slamming than any other consumer
protection issue. So we are working on another set of rules
which I am encouraged by, because if we can adopt these rules,
I think it will take the financial incentive out of slamming.
What I would like to see is a rule that provides if a
carrier slams a customer, that customer is not obligated to pay
the long distance carrier for a period of time. I believe a
rule like that would take the financial incentive out of
slamming, and go a long way to solving the problem.
I will also say that we have been working with many State
commissions who also have problems with slamming, and we are
trying to share information and identify who the real bad
actors are out there.
To answer your question about timing, we have put out a
notice of proposed rulemaking on more stringent antislamming
rules, and we hope to issue those in a report and order within
the next 30 to 60 days.
Senator Campbell. Does the bill that Senator Burns and
Senator Hollings that passed by the committee, is that going to
broaden your authority.
Mr. Kennard. Yes; I am encouraged by that. It will give us
more enforcement authority, a treble damages provision, pretty
hefty fines. So I think that would be a help as well.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Good morning.
Universal service fund
Senator Stevens. I would like to get a little philosophical
with you, if I can. What is more important to the
communications program of the FCC: Universal service, or the
schools, libraries, and health care hook ups?
Mr. Kennard. Well, Senator, I think I go back to the
statute, because my job is to implement the law. Both
provisions, both universal service for funding high cost in
insular areas, and schools and libraries are in the statute.
And so we have a statutory obligation to implement both.
Both are important.
Senator Stevens. The universal service fund preceded the
schools and libraries amendment, and was in being. Did the FCC
do any studies to indicate what would be required to maintain
the universal service concept, particularly for the high cost,
low income universal service fund, before starting to take
money out of it for schools, libraries, and health facilities
hook ups?
Mr. Kennard. Well, the----
Senator Stevens. I want to know did you make a study.
Mr. Kennard. Did we make a study of----
Senator Stevens. The impact on the fund by the withdrawals
that you proposed to make.
Mr. Kennard. I cannot say that we did, no. I am hesitating,
though, because the high cost funding mechanism, as you know,
sir, has been in place for many years.
Senator Stevens. Right.
Mr. Kennard. And will continue in place without taking any
money out of it.
Senator Stevens. Well, sir, how do you know that if you do
not know how much it needs to continue? This is an entirely new
drawdown on the fund at an alarming rate. Do you know when the
lines cross as to the availability of funds to meet the
universal service fund obligations and the withdrawals for this
new purpose?
Mr. Kennard. Well, I do not think they are mutually
exclusive. I think they are all part of universal service. And
Congress directed that we have a mechanism to fund both high
cost and schools and libraries.
Senator Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennard. Now, the obvious question that we have to
grapple with is to ensure that we can do both without putting
too much stress on the system, if you will.
Senator Stevens. Congress did not put a time limit on it,
and you did. Congress did not put a goal of the year 2000 and
you did. That is an interesting year that you picked, but
beyond that, without regard to political concepts, it does seem
that there is enormous drawdown, and the impact of what is
happening now is that the fund itself could well reach the
point where it could not meet the basic purposes for which it
was founded.
Congress did not tell you to destroy the universal service
concept in order to hook up schools and libraries immediately.
It just said put together a program to hook them up. We all
supported that. But now we see real confusion in the system.
Are you going to raise rates again in the next quarter in order
to keep the fund solvent?
Mr. Kennard. Well, let me be clear, Senator. The Commission
has not raised rates to pay for universal service. The
Commission has very carefully ensured that the universal
service funding obligation for schools, libraries, and rural
health care is not in excess of reductions in access charges.
So we can be confident that overall rates should continue
to decline in the long distance marketplace. And I think that
that is a really important concept, and I think, in fact, that
that concept is a part of the amendment to the supplemental
appropriations bill that you offered this week.
Senator Stevens. We are going to have to see whether that
gets through--and I hope it does--when we get the answers from
the FCC.
But I would think that any concern that is initiating a new
program that would take money from an existing fund that had
existing obligations, and an ongoing drawdown from the fund
along with ongoing income coming into the fund, would make an
analysis of what this new program would require, and how the
funds could be taken from that existing fund to meet that new
obligation without destroying the old one. Apparently you made
no such study. Right?
Mr. Kennard. Well, let me be clear, Senator. The premise of
your question seems to be that we are taking money from the
high cost fund to fund the schools and libraries mechanism, and
that is not the case.
We are not robbing from Peter to pay Paul here. It is a
separate mechanism. The only question that could be asked is
are we putting too much stress on the system overall? But
overall, we are trying to ensure that rates continue to decline
overall, and we are not taking money out of high-cost funding
to pay for schools and libraries.
Senator Stevens. Not at all?
Mr. Kennard. No; that has never been the----
Senator Stevens. I will be interested in the answers to the
questions then, because unless you have some new, mythical pool
that I do not understand, you have to be taking some money from
that fund in order to meet the obligations that you have
incurred. Are you going to wire the inside of these schools
with money from the fund?
Mr. Kennard. Well, the current FCC rules do permit funding
for wiring of the schools, yes.
Senator Stevens. That is part of universal service? To put
the facilities inside a school to plug in a computer and to
plug in the outside fiber optic to serve that computer?
Mr. Kennard. Well, I think that a fair reading of the
conference report for the 1996 act is that Congress intended
that there be wiring of the classrooms, not just one Internet
access point to the schools. I think that is a fair reading of
the statute, so the Commission adopted rules that would make
that----
Senator Stevens. I think your fair reading of the
conference report would be that it was not assumed we would
just have one computer per classroom. But it did not
contemplate we would be wiring schools.
If I were in the electrical business right now, I think I
would head for the schools, but it's just an open season. What
is the guideline for wiring them? How many rooms can you wire
in a school? How much can you spend to replace existing wiring
that may be defective and needs it, but certainly not an
obligation to the universal service fund.
I am just appalled, really, at the way the program has been
accelerated for political purposes, frankly. And I think you
are going to end up by destroying the universal service fund if
you are not careful. I hope the Congress will agree that we can
ask you those questions and get them on the record.
I hope you are very serious about it, because I am very
serious about it. I think if the FCC cannot learn to follow the
law, and not try to see how far it can stretch the law, we
ought to get a new mechanism for telecommunications in this
country. The problems we are having with regard to the issues--
I know Senator Hollings raised before I was here--with the FCC
legislating on issues that we have debated at least 20 times
since Senator Hollings and I have been in the Congress. The FCC
apparently seems to think it can take a direction, an edict
from a vice president, and start to legislate.
Now, once before we had trouble with the FCC, and two of us
reduced it from five to three. If it continues, we will reduce
it to zero, as far as this Senator is concerned, because I
think you are going much beyond the concepts that are in
existing laws.
I hope that the FCC will wake up. There are other
mechanisms for carrying out our obligations to the
telecommunications system, and many of my colleagues argued at
the time we were handling the telecommunications bill for
complete deregulation.
Some of us argued against that--that it was not timely--but
your FCC is making the case for the people who wanted to just
destroy it 2 years ago. I think the Senator from South Carolina
and I may join them, and build a new system which will be
responsive to the public need, not to the political will of
whatever administration is in power.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
associate myself with your comments.
Following up on the universal service issue, GAO has issued
a legal opinion that the FCC exceeded its authority in
implementing this language. What is your response to the GAO
position?
Mr. Kennard. Senator, this issue is being litigated in the
court, so I have to be somewhat careful about what I say here.
I think that the Commission made a reasonable argument that the
funding mechanisms that were set up are lawful under two key
provisions of the act, section 254 and section 4(i).
That being said, though, we are obviously concerned about
the GAO report, and I am committed to working with Members of
the Congress to make sure that on a going forward basis we are
not haunted by this issue, and that we come up with some way to
resolve it. Because we do not want to set up a funding
mechanism that has a legal cloud over it. And there are ways
that we can fix that, and I am looking forward to working with
you all to figure that out.
Senator Gregg. Well, if you get a report from your
accounting office, if you were in the private sector, that said
you had acted illegally--we could ask our next witness this
question--if you were to file a report on your 10-K that said
you acted illegally, and you were still acting illegally, I
think you might have some serious problems, if your accounting
agency said you were acting illegally and you were not
responding to it.
Mr. Kennard. Senator, I am not trying to minimize the
problem, but I am saying we need to work this out. There are
provisions in the supplemental appropriations amendment that
addressed this. I do not think it would be prudent to act
precipitously and just put the brakes on a program that is up
and running and is underway. But obviously we have got to find
ways to address these concerns and problems. And you have my
commitment that we are going to work with you to try to do
that.
selection of Corporation and Board members
Senator Gregg. How are the heads of these corporations
chosen? How is the leadership for the Schools and Libraries
Corp. chosen?
Mr. Kennard. I believe they are chosen by the Board of
Directors, with the approval of the Chairman of the FCC.
Senator Gregg. And who chooses the Board of Directors?
Mr. Kennard. The Board of Directors are basically nominated
by various stakeholders in this debate. So the Commission tried
to come up with a balanced approach.
Senator Gregg. Who chooses them? These corporations were
formed by the FCC.
Mr. Kennard. Right.
Senator Gregg. And the Board of Directors were essentially
created and appointed by the FCC.
Mr. Kennard. Yes; they are nominated by the various
stakeholders, and the authority----
Senator Gregg. It is determined by the FCC.
Mr. Kennard. Yes; ultimately the Chairman of the FCC makes
the appointments.
Senator Gregg. Can you tell me what sort of background the
present president of the Schools and Libraries Corp. has that
would qualify him for this position?
Mr. Kennard. Yes; Mr. Fishman is an attorney who has
practiced law for many years, and has been very involved in
education issues. I believe he worked--I am not sure if I have
his whole curriculum vitae correct, but I believe he worked at
a law firm in Washington, and then worked in the White House
for a period of time, and then came to the FCC. He then went
back to law practice and was appointed head of the Schools and
Libraries Corp.
Senator Gregg. He is really a political person.
Mr. Kennard. I do not think it is fair to say he is a
political person, Senator. Let me say this about this
corporation. It was established in September, and they have
worked very, very hard and done a tremendous job, in my view,
to get this corporation up and running to the point where it is
now.
They set up a website. They have accepted almost 40,000
applications. They have done outreach around the country. I
cannot imagine this effort being done better by Government or
by another enterprise. I think they have done a fantastic job.
Senator Gregg. Well, I hope they do, because obviously this
corporation is going to have potentially $2.3 billion or so
under the terms of the documentation. That is a lot of money,
and it has to be managed effectively. The management team that
is over there cannot be lawyers and politicians; they should be
business people and people who have some experience with
technology especially.
Senator Hollings. I wish you had considered me for that
job. [Laughter.]
I am just reading here, he gets $200,000 plus $50,000;
$250,000. I am only getting $136,000. I have to keep up two
homes, run back home, organize a $5 million corporation. We
worked until 9:30 last night on the Budget Committee. And I
have been in education a long time. [Laughter.]
$250,000?
Senator Gregg. Sounds good to me, too. I do not think I
qualify, but you do.
Portals
The Portals issue appears to be a building that you do not
want to move into. I understand it now has problems with its
wiring. Maybe we should have the Schools and Libraries Corp. go
over and wire it. But I understand it has serious wiring
problems. That it is potentially going to cost more than what
your present landlord may offer to you. You did not create this
problem. I do not lay it at your doorstep at all. All I want to
know is what do you folks really want to do here? Tell us, one
way or the other. Do you want to move over there or don't you
want to move over there?
Mr. Kennard. I have reviewed the chronology of this effort
to consolidate the Commission in new headquarters, and it has
been a 10-year-old effort. It is a long chronology. And at this
point, I think that we have to resolve this situation. The
Government is paying rent on a building that no one is in right
now. I could spend hours talking about the problems in getting
us to this point, and the difficulties we have had with GSA
over time.
But at this point I think it is appropriate for us to just
look forward. The FCC needs to consolidate its operations in
one headquarters. This has been a need for over 10 years now. I
think the Portals building, although not perfect, does offer us
the opportunity to move somewhere sooner rather than later.
That is why I sent you a letter, Mr. Chairman, asking that
we get clarity from the Congress as to whether we are going to
have funding to make this move. Because if the money is
available, I think we should go ahead and move. I think it is
frankly an embarrassment for the Government to be paying $1.7
million in rent on an empty building. But if we decide we are
not going to go, then the GSA is going to either have to break
that lease, which is going to cost the Government lots of
money, or they are going to have to find some other agency to
move in there. And it will take years to get another agency in
that building. So I think we are at a point where we have got
to cut our losses, and just move ahead.
But that being said, I do not think it is appropriate for
the FCC to move into a building unless it meets our minimal
needs. That is, we must have funding to pay the rent, because
it would not be appropriate for us to be laying off 100 people
in order to pay our rent.
And, second, I think that we have to make sure that our
security concerns are met in that building. I have not received
assurances from GSA or the current landlord that our security
needs will be met. This is a very, very important issue to me.
Because the FCC is a fairly high profile agency, we get bomb
threats. We had an employee who was murdered some years ago by
a crazy person, and I do not want to leave this agency some
years hence and lose sleep at night not knowing that I did
everything I could to make sure that our employees are
protected.
Senator Gregg. I think that is a pretty good answer, and we
will try to give you our view.
Mr. Kennard. I understand the issues.
Public safety spectrum application
Senator Gregg. About 3 or 4 years ago, I think--I have lost
track now, because I have asked it so many times--New Hampshire
had a public safety spectrum application, and it is still
somewhere in your agency. Are you familiar at all with this?
Did your staff mention this to you?
Mr. Kennard. I am familiar with it. Yes; I have been
briefed on it. I cannot address the substance, because it is a
restricted, contested proceeding, and under our rules I cannot
talk about that publicly. But I will commit that we will
resolve it. It has been pending too long. I have been told that
it has been pending for 4 years or so. And we will bring it to
a resolution.
Senator Gregg. What would be the date that we could expect
a decision? Within 1 month?
Mr. Kennard. I do not know what the pleading cycles are,
but assuming the pleading cycles are all over, I will commit
within 30 days we will get that resolved for you.
Senator Gregg. Any more questions?
Universal service fund
Senator Hollings. No; Mr. Chairman, I would emphasize the
concern of all of us. We have the best communications system in
the world, and with that as a starter, let us not mess it up by
messing up universal service.
You are right. We can do both, but you cannot invade that
universal service fund, and you cannot just overnight put in
all of these charges and kill the gun crew, namely the
Congressmen and Senators, with these charges appearing on these
particular invoices.
What happens is we go from a monopoly situation, in the
public interest, whereby the companies did not mind putting on
these charges. Right to the point, my schools are all wired,
already. Voluntarily. Because I take it they can take it out of
the rates and go, because they can always apply for it.
But now you are moving over into the competitive
environment, and in that environment they will try to pick
every little advantage or disadvantage or listing or whatever
it is, as you can well see. And that takes some time, too.
You just cannot get every school wired and every classroom
wired by the year 2000. It would be my hope, of course, to get
those classrooms wired. That is what this Senator had in mind,
because the communications companies such as Bell South and
other independent ones have all voluntarily joined together and
all my schools are wired right now, but not every classroom.
So let us always keep our eye on the ball, namely
maintaining the universal service, the wonderful
telecommunications system that we have, and in our effort to
try to extend Internet to all the users in the schools and
hospitals and libraries in America, we should ensure we don't
turn around and mess up the good system we have, or the gun
crew.
They say in the artillery, no matter how well a gun is
aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the gun crew, you do not
fire it. Remember that.
Mr. Kennard. I will, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Yes, siree.
Cable regulations
Senator Gregg. I have been asked by a Senator to ask you a
question. It is clear that the Congress is not going to remove
the March 1999 sunset on cable regulations. Rather than
debating that point, what is the FCC doing to support
competitive alternatives to cable?
Mr. Kennard. We are doing a number of things, Senator. One
key is to review program access. Programming is really the
engine that drives the cable and multichannel and video
business. So it is very important in my view that we make sure
that competitors to cable get access to programming.
In the 1992 Cable Act, there were provisions on program
access that literally spawned the competitive DBS industry. So
one of the first things that I did as chairman, was to present
a set of proposed rules to strengthen the program access
requirements, and we will be bringing those to conclusion in
the next few months.
But I do think that there is a role for Congress here to
play, too. I think that in order to strengthen DBS as a
potential competitor to cable, it would be really wonderful in
my view if DBS could get legislation that would allow them to
carry the local signals of broadcast stations. Because then
they would be a stronger competitor to cable. And DBS is really
the best hope we have right now of quickly bringing new
multichannel competition to the cable business.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
Senator Gregg. We thank you for your time, and I do think
there have been some fairly definitive statements made relative
to where we hope the Commission would be proceeding, and
certainly by the chairman of the committee and the ranking
member, and my joining in those statements.
We have a big job. We want to support you.
Mr. Kennard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Additional committee questions
Senator Gregg. We look forward to working with you.
Mr. Kennard. Me, too. Thank you very much.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
Senator Gregg. We will be briefly in recess.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Commission for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Additional Committee Questions
government performance and results act [gpra]
Question. How are the agency's annual performance goals linked to
the agency's mission, strategic goals and program activities in its
budget request?
Answer. From their inception, both the FCC Strategic Plan and the
Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 1999 were based on our four
budget activities--policy and rulemaking, authorization of service,
enforcement and public information services. Linking strategic and
annual performance to the program activity structure required some
reformatting of our annual budget submission but did not require any
modification to the activity structure itself.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities?
Answer. We have viewed the performance goals and measurements
required for the Annual Performance Plan as specific subsets of the
generic Strategic Objectives and measurements contained in our
Strategic Plan. These, in turn, are based on our four budget
activities. To test the validity of this approach, we have modeled
several performance goals for each strategic objective listed under
each of our four budget activities. For example:
Budget Activity.--Enforcement.
Strategic Objective.--The FCC will privatize all technical
enforcement functions that the private sector can perform more
effectively.
Performance Measurement.--The number of enforcement functions
successfully privatized (output).
Annual Performance Goal.--The Compliance and Information Bureau
will complete a rulemaking on further privatization of interference
complaint processing.
Annual Performance Measurement.--Whether the privatization of
interference complaint handling rulemaking was completed and
implemented (output) and the initial impact completion of the
rulemaking had on targeted customer(s) (outcome).
Question. Does the agency's Performance Plan link performance
measures to its budget?
Does each account have performance measures?
Answer. For the past few fiscal years, the FCC's budget has been
reduced or straightlined by Congress (excluding funding for
implementation of the Telecommunications Act). Our performance plan
links measures to our budget and our goals are based on the assumption
that we will not receive significant additional resources in fiscal
year 1999. Every goal, except for the completion of expansion of the
National Call Center and work on Year 2000 compliance initiatives--can
be completed within the budgetary levels allocated by Congress. We are
able to accomplish this through streamlining our organizational
structure and processes and through a careful review and ranking of our
major technology and policy initiatives.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification?
Do you propose any changes to your account structure for fiscal
year 2000?
Will you propose any changes to the program activities described
under that account structure?
Answer. As mentioned in our response to the first question, we have
used our four budget activities as the framework for our Strategic and
Annual Performance Plans. Using this approach as the basis of our
strategic planning will enable us to adequately predict future workload
and the resources required to meet this workload. We do not anticipate
any changes in our account structure in fiscal year 2000.
Question. How were performance measures chosen?
How did the agency balance the cost of data collection and
verification with the need for reliable and valid performance data?
Does your plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for your first performance
report in March 2000?
Answer. In planning the means to measure performance, the FCC
sought to build on existing reporting systems rather than construct new
ones. Our quarterly Workload Reports and Planning Commitment Charts
have been expanded to capture all GPRA-related goals. Reports required
by the Telecommunications Act or other Congressional requests for
information such as the Biennial Review of FCC Rules and Regulations
and the ``State of Competition'' reports will be used both to report on
our major deregulatory, streamlining initiatives and to assess the
growth in competitive telecommunications services. Our Annual Report
and periodic customer service surveys will evaluate our coordination
efforts with state and local governments, private organizations and
with telecommunications consumers. Finally, our automated systems, such
as the Common Carrier Bureau's informal complaints processing system
and the Compliance and Information Bureau's National Call Center are
capable of complex reporting on enforcement and public information
service initiatives on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis.
As we have stated elsewhere in this reply, several of our major
policy and rulemaking performance goals--mainly those concerning
competition in the local telephone markets and our efforts to provide
advanced telecommunications services to schools, libraries and to rural
areas--have either just been implemented or are still in litigation.
Any attempt to assess the impacts or outcomes of these policy decisions
in fiscal year 1999 would be rudimentary at best. We believe that it
will be several years following the end of litigation and
implementation of our final rules before any accurate determination can
be made concerning the effects of our actions to either stimulate
competition or ensure that communications capabilities are provided to
all those who need access to them.
Question. What are the key performance goals from your fiscal year
1999 Annual Performance Plan which you recommend this subcommittee use
to track program results?
For each key annual goal, indicate whether you consider it to be an
output measure (``how much'') or an outcome measure (``how well'').
State the long-term (fiscal year 2003) general goal and objective
from the agency Strategic Plan to which the annual plan is linked.
Answer. In our fiscal year 1999 Annual Performance Plan, the FCC
has committed to 69 performance goals, spread over 13 strategic
objectives which are divided equally over our four budget activities.
Twenty-nine, or 42 percent of total number of goals, are in the policy
and rulemaking activity and are required rulemakings mandated by the
Telecommunications Act or other legislation. However, we believe that
Congress could capture the ``state of the FCC'' by tracking the
following key performance goals listed here by budget activity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Strategic goals Fiscal year 1999 performance goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of Service........... We will meet our established customer We will review our authorization of
Speed of Service processing goals. service rules and will simplify and
We will encourage competition in the streamline those authorization
telecommunications industry through requirements where appropriate.
efficient licensing and (output and outcome)
authorization of service to We will meet 90 percent of our
competitive services. customer Speed of Disposal
processing goals. (output and
outcome)
We will provide electronic filing
capabilities for Common Carrier
Bureau, Mass Media Bureau,
International Bureau, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and
Office of Engineering and
Technology licensing systems.
(output and outcome)
Policy and Rulemaking.............. We will restructure and streamline We will review the FCC's functions
the FCC, eliminating outdated or and structure and eliminate
redundant organizations and obsolete or overlapping ones.
overlapping regulation. (outcome)
We will continue to hold public
fora, meet with our state
regulatory partners, and consumer
groups to solicit input and
feedback to ensure our rules are in
the public interest and are the
least burdensome to achieve our
stated goals. (outcome)
We will encourage competition in the We will continue to implement the
telecommunications industry through local competition provisions of the
procompetitive, deregulatory Telecommunications Act of 1996.
rulemakings, reducing consumer costs (output)
and increasing the We will work to improve the
telecommunications choices available connections of classrooms,
to consumers. libraries and rural health care
facilities to the Internet by the
end of fiscal year 1999 and to
maintain affordable
telecommunications services to
rural America. (outcome)
We will apply, and continue to
refine, pricing rules which allow
incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
additional flexibility in pricing
interstate access consistent with
the development of competition.
(outcome)
We will ensure that public safety
groups have adequate spectrum and
advanced telecommunications
equipment by completing ``The
Development of Operational,
Technical and Spectrum Requirements
for Meeting Federal, State and
Local Public Safety Agency
Communication Requirements through
the Year 2010''. (outcome)
We will continue to participate in
global standard setting for
telecommunications services.
(outcome)
We will reduce reporting requirements We will conduct a review of our
and eliminate unnecessary and rules and regulations in fiscal
burdensome rules. year 1998 to determine which can be
eliminated or revised. In fiscal
year 1999, we will initiate
rulemakings to eliminate obsolete
or overlapping regulatory and/or
reporting requirements. (output/
outcome)
We will continue implementation of
the World Trade Organization Basic
Services Agreement which will allow
WTO-member nations to apply for
authorization to provide
competitive telecommunications
services to U.S. customers.
(output)
Enforcement........................ We will streamline our complaints We will improve the Speed of
process and procedures to ensure Disposal for routine informal
timely and satisfactory resolution common carrier complaints by 20
of consumer complaints. percent. (outcome)
We will review broadcast and cable
enforcement processes and eliminate
inefficient procedures and
practices. (output/outcome)
We will work as a partner with the We will continue to work closely
private sector and with federal, with other federal agencies, state
state and local governments in the commissions and the public to
investigation and resolution of ensure the expeditious processing
shared telecommunications problems of Bell Operating Company Section
focusing particularly on issues 271 applications. (output)
affecting the safety of life and We will continue to work with other
property. This will ensure that federal agencies, state
problem resolution is achieved commissions, and state attorneys
quickly at the least possible cost general to protect the public
and with state and local interests interest, especially in the area of
duly considered. consumer related complaints,
including when it involves unlawful
activity by foreign entities that
affect American telecommunications
users. (outcome)
We will identify industry and We will continue to monitor
consumer issues through customer potential anti-competitive behavior
feedback on the impact of our rules, by carriers in providing
the levels of enforcement, the information services. (outcome)
effects of nonenforcement and the We will meet with industry and the
need for revisions to our public to discuss current
enforcement policies and procedures. telecommunications concerns and
complaints. We will identify the
main consumer complaints concerning
telecommunications services and
coordinate agency-wide actions to
resolve them. (outcome)
Public Information Services........ We will provide ``one stop'' We will complete the implementation
information shopping through of the National Call Center in
consolidation of our public Gettysburg, Pa. to provide ``one
reference rooms and other stop shopping'' for telephone
information services. inquiries. (output/outcome)
We will design our information We will design and implement
systems for Internet applications as Internet-compatible licensing
well as other media to ensure rapid applications. (output/outcome)
and efficient dissemination of We will routinely host public fora
information to our customers. to discuss a broad range of legal,
We will encourage public policy, and technical issues raised
participation in all FCC proceedings in various FCC rulemaking
to ensure all parties' views are proceedings. (outcome)
heard and that there is speedy
resolution of issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In developing your Annual Performance Plan, what efforts
did your agency undertake to ensure that the goals in the plan include
a significant number of outcome measures?
Answer. Whenever possible, we have formulated outcome performance
measures that assess the impact of our actions on our customers and our
stakeholders. However, we should emphasize that many of our fiscal year
1999 performance goals, particularly our policy initiatives, are
related to the FCC's traditional rulemaking procedures which are
governed by the statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act and result from requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
or agency-initiated proceedings to effectively continue implementation
of the Act. Because these initiatives are prescribed by legal
requirements, they are more output in nature--whether a rulemaking was
completed or rules reviewed--although the long-term impact of these
goals will ultimately be measurable outcomes. However, any attempt to
assess impacts or outcomes of these activities at this time would be
premature, since many of our deregulatory initiatives are currently in
litigation. In addition, although we continue to monitor competition in
the telecommunications industry, it will be several years following the
end of litigation and implementation of final agency rules before any
determination can be made of the effect of our actions on the industry.
Finally, as both OMB and GAO have noted in their published guidelines,
determining the effect of a regulatory agency's actions on a
marketplace in an expanding industry where there are many factors
contributing to its overall economic state can be challenging.
Question. Do you have the technological capability of measuring and
reporting program performance throughout the year on a regular basis,
so that the agency can be properly managed to achieve the desired
results?
If so, who has access to the information--senior management only,
or mid- and lower-level program managers, too?
Are you able to gain access easily to various performance-related
data located throughout your various information systems?
Answer. The FCC has several monthly, quarterly, and annual
reporting systems in place which will track and provide data on whether
we are meeting our performance goals. Chief among these are our
Quarterly Workload Reports and Quarterly Commitment Charts which track
and measure many of our authorization of service, policy and rulemaking
and enforcement initiatives.
Our Bureaus and Offices also conduct periodic consumer surveys to
obtain feedback from their customers on how well they are doing in
their efforts to improve performance in all four budget activities.
Survey results are routinely published on each of the Bureaus'/Offices'
Home Pages on the Internet.
These and other management reports are prepared in the
administrative offices of each of our Bureaus and Offices by mid-level
management staff. They are reviewed and analyzed by senior management
staff throughout the agency. There are no access restrictions to these
reports within the FCC.
Question. The Government Performance and Results Act requires that
your agency's Annual Performance Plan establish performance goals to
define the level of performance achieved by each program activity set
forth in your budget.
Many agencies have indicated that their present budget account
structure makes it difficult to link dollars to results in a clear and
meaningful way.
Have you faced such difficulty?
Would the linkages be clearer if your budget account structure were
modified?
If so, how would you propose to modify it and why do you believe
such modification would be more useful both to your agency and to this
committee than the present structure?
How would such modification strengthen accountability for program
performance in the use of budgeted dollars?
Answer. From the inception of GPRA implementation at the FCC, it
was our intent to ``marry'' our Annual Performance Plan and our annual
budget submission. We believe that this approach will facilitate not
only the formulation and tracking of our goals and accomplishments but
also the identification of any future resource requirements. We do not
require any modification to our budget account structure at this time.
We should also add that the FCC is fully funded each year through
the collection of regulatory fees. Every year we collect data on the
number of licensees or subscriber units in each of our services and
compare these to the costs of our doing business in each of the fee
categories. The cost of regulation is adjusted each year as the
workload increases or decreases for a specific service. This allows us
not only to capture our regulatory costs but project future workload.
Question. Under one of the new accounting standards recommended by
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and issued by
OMB, this year for the first time all federal agencies are required to
have a system of Managerial Cost Accounting.
The clearly preferred methodology for such a system, as stated in
that standard, is the one known as ``activity-based costing,'' whereby
the full cost is calculated for each of the activities of an agency.
What is the status of your agency's implementation of the
Managerial Cost Accounting requirement, and are you using activity-
based costing?
Answer. The Commission implemented a comprehensive cost accounting
system on October 1, 1995. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993, Public Law 103-66, authorized a new user fee program for certain
FCC regulatory programs. This law also required the Commission to
develop a cost accounting system that would provide data to be used in
annual modifications to the regulatory fee rate structure. The cost
accounting system, which has been operational for about two years and
six months, meets all of the recommended accounting standards developed
by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), except for
the accumulation of outputs and performance measures. Some workload
data is available elsewhere in the Commission but is not linked to the
cost accounting system at this time.
Activity-based costing is being used by the Commission. The cost
accounting system provides full cost reporting (direct and indirect) on
all FCC costs. This data is further broken out by budget activity,
project and cost organization by appropriation and/or account by fiscal
year.
Question. Will you be able in the future to show to this committee
the full and accurate cost of each activity of each program, including
in those calculations such items as administration, employee benefits,
and depreciation?
Answer. Yes, in fact that information is currently available. We
accumulate costs monthly for both direct and indirect items. The
indirect costs which include such items as administration, employee
benefits, leave, rental of space, telecommunications, etc. are
mechanically allocated monthly. The distribution is based on allocation
models developed for each type of expense. We do not cost out
depreciation but expense the actual cost of purchases. However, we do
record depreciation at fiscal year end for balance sheet purposes.
Question. By doing so, would we then be able to see more precisely
the relationship between the dollars spent on a program, the true costs
of the activities conducted by the program, and the results of these
activities?
Answer. Currently, full costs (direct and indirect) are available
for all FCC programs. However, as stated previously, the cost data is
not linked to ``results'' or performance measures at this time.
Question. Future funding decisions will take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance. Given
that:
To what extent are your performance measures sufficiently mature to
allow for these kinds of uses?
Are there any factors, such as inexperience in making activities or
lack of data, that might affect the accuracy of resource estimates?
Answer. The FCC is a small regulatory agency with a clearly defined
mission and specific activities. It would not be difficult for us to
adopt a results-based budget in the near future--with one caveat. Even
our agency, with a defined mission and limited activities, experiences
unpredictable workload fluctuations and changes. Some accommodation
must be made in the GPRA-planning process to allow for these changes.
For example, the FCC cannot predict the nature, scope and number of
consumer complaints and inquiries that our deregulatory initiatives may
engender in fiscal year 1999. Nor can we predict the number and types
of new telecommunications services which will be introduced or which
will experience unpredicted growth in the near-term. Long distance
telephone service via the Internet, and set top boxes providing
consumers with a wide range of telecommunications services are just two
possibilities that appear on the current horizon. Finally, Congress
frequently passes new legislation or imposes additional reporting
requirements on us, expanding our regulatory responsibilities and
workload. Often, these additional responsibilities are not accompanied
with the requisite resources; instead, we are asked to assume the
workload ``within existing resources.'' Congress must provide agencies
with the ability and flexibility to redirect resources, eliminate or
amend specific performance goals, and refocus their activities if GPRA
is to be a complete success.
Question. Based on your fiscal year 1999 performance plan, do you
see any need for any substantive revisions to your strategic plan
issued on September 30, 1997?
Answer. Although we believe that our current Strategic Plan
reflects our fundamental mission and activities, we intend to review
and, if necessary, revise and reformat the Strategic Plan within the
next two years.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Chairman Kennard, your testimony mentions the final rules
and channel assignments the Commission made last month for the
transition to digital TV. I understand that in that final decision, the
Commission gave broadcasters an additional 30 megahertz of spectrum
that had not been contemplated when the two sets of channel assignments
were under consideration for most of the past year.
Could you please explain to me the rationale for expanding the
amount for digital TV by 30 MHz beyond the FCC's or the industry's
original plan?
Answer. The decision to expand the DTV core spectrum to include
channels 2-51 was based on a number of considerations. The Commission's
original plan to specify the core as either channels 2-46 or 7-51
(depending on which channels are better for DTV), was based on studies
showing that after the transition is complete the DTV operations of all
existing stations could be accommodated within 45 channels. Subsequent
to that decision, new testing by the Advanced Television Technology
Center (ATTC) indicated that the adjacent channel interference
performance of the DTV system, particularly with respect to DTV-to-DTV
interference, will be 100 times worse than originally planned for. This
new data means that, except where adjacent channel DTV operations are
co-located, DTV stations must be located farther apart to avoid
interference than we originally planned. This reduces our ability to
use some channels in the same or nearby markets, with the result that
it will not be possible to locate the DTV operations of all the
existing TV stations in only 45 channels as originally planned. Thus,
in our recent Memorandum Opinion and Order on DTV allotments, we had to
increase the size of the core spectrum in order to ensure that all
existing DTV stations would be able to continue to operate after the
transition. This change will also mean less interference to existing
broadcasters in major markets during the transition.
The Commission also found that providing an additional five
channels for DTV will promote additional competition and diversity in
the provision of DTV services by increasing the availability of
channels for new stations and networks. With the additional channels
there will be opportunities for new stations in many markets after the
transition. This change will also eliminate mandatory second moves into
the core for about 120 broadcasters at the end of the transition.
Increasing the DTV core spectrum will also reduce the impact on low
power television stations. In this regard, the Commission noted that
channels 2-6 and 47-51 now support a significant number of low power
and TV translators. The low VHF channels, for example, have some of the
highest concentration of low power stations and translators. Expanding
the core to include channels 2-6 will eliminate the eventual
displacement of most of these stations. In addition, expanding the core
will provide low power stations with more channels and opportunities
for new stations and relocation of existing stations. This change,
therefore, will provide for continued operation of some 500 additional
low power TV and TV translator stations that provide service to many
suburban and rural areas and that otherwise might have been required to
cease operation.
Finally the Commission noted that expanding the DTV core spectrum
will still permit recovery of 108 MHz of spectrum at the end of the
transition period, which is more than one-fourth of the total spectrum
used for broadcast television today. This amount of spectrum is
significantly more than the Commission's original plan in 1992 to
recover 72 MHz of spectrum. I also believe that from a budget stand
point our decision regarding the core spectrum is comparable to our
prior decision regarding core spectrum because the new DTV channels
created by this action will be assigned through competitive bidding
pursuant to the Budget Act of 1997. The Commission's analysis indicates
that expanding the core will add approximately 175 additional channels
for new stations, and that many of these new channels will be in top
markets. For example, there potentially may be one or more new channels
available in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.
Most of the new channels will be awarded through competitive bidding
procedures as required under new Section 309(j)(14)(C) of the
Communications Act.
c block licenses
Question. Chairman Kennard, your staff advised me last week that
the Commission would be issuing a decision this week that revises the
options made available last fall to bidders who have not made payments
on their bid for the Block C spectrum licenses.
Can you tell me whether that decision has been made and, if so,
what the differences are from the options offered by the Commission
last fall and what will be the response from the bidders?
Answer. On March 24, 1998, the Commission released an Order on
Reconsideration (``Reconsideration Order'') addressing installment
payment financing issues for broadband Personal Communications Services
(``PCS'') C block licensees. Although, the Reconsideration Order
generally affirms the framework of our September 1997 Second Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``Second Report and
Order''), which provided limited debt relief as an alternative to
continuing under the existing installment payment plan, it improves
upon the previous Order by permitting elections of restructuring
options on a Major Trading Area (``MTA'') basis rather than requiring
licensees to make one all-inclusive election, and increasing the amount
of credit available for disaggregated spectrum.
The principal modification of the Reconsideration Order eliminates
the requirement that a licensee elect the same restructuring option for
all its licenses, providing instead that it must elect the same option
for all the licenses it holds within a given MTA cancelled. This
modification will permit licensees to develop regional business plans
and investment strategies while ensuring that entire MTA markets are
returned to the Commission for the reauction of C block licenses.
C block licensees not resuming original installment payments may
elect amnesty, prepayment, or disaggregation. However, as part of the
modifications adopted in the Reconsideration Order, the Commission will
also permit licensees to disaggregate and prepay the remaining
outstanding balance due on the disaggregated license. The terms for
resumption of payments or the prepayment option remain unchanged from
the Second Report and Order:
Prepayment.--A licensee may purchase any of its licenses, at the
face value of the outstanding debt on those licenses. Subject to the
affordability exception, a licensee must purchase all of the licenses
it now owns within any single MTA. A licensee may use 70 percent of its
down payment on licenses from other MTA's that it does not wish to
retain as a credit towards prepaying those licenses that it wishes to
keep. Licenses that are relinquished in accordance with this option
must be surrendered to the Commission for reauction. A licensee
electing this option (and its affiliates) may not bid at the reauction
for any of the licenses that the licensee relinquishes, and may not
otherwise acquire any such license in the secondary market for a period
of two years.
However, the Commission has modified the amnesty and disaggregation
options as follows:
Amnesty.--The licensee may return to the Commission any of its
licenses so long as all licenses within an MTA are returned. The entire
outstanding debt on returned licenses will be forgiven. For licenses
that are returned, the licensee will have two choices: (1) the licensee
may opt to re-bid on those licenses in the reauction; or (2) the
licensee may opt to forgo the opportunity to re-acquire its returned
licenses in exchange for a credit of 70 percent of the down payment
already made on the returned licenses. The same choice must be made for
all licenses within an MTA. The 70 percent credit must be used to
prepay either a 30 MHz or 15 MHz disaggregated licenses retained by the
licensee.
Disaggregation.--A licensee may disaggregate all of its 30 MHz
licenses within an MTA and return 15 MHz to the Commission in exchange
for forgiveness of 50 percent of the outstanding debt. For licensees
who elect to disaggregate, there are two options, resume payments on
the disaggregated license under the terms of the installment payment
plan or prepay the outstanding loan balance on the disaggregated
license. For a licensee who elects to continue installment payments for
the disaggregated license, the licensee will receive a total credit
equal to 70 percent of the original down payment made on the 30 MHz
disaggregated license. 50 percent of the credit will be applied as a
down payment on the outstanding debt and 40 percent of the downpayment
associated with the disaggregated spectrum that is returned to the
Commission may be used to prepay Suspension Interest or reduce
principal at the licensee's option. For licensees who elect to prepay
outstanding debt on the disaggregated license, the licensee will
receive a credit equal to 85 percent of the original down payment made
on the 30 MHz disaggregated license. Consistent with the prepayment
option for 30 MHz licenses, this credit represents 70 percent of the
down payment associated with the 15 MHz returned spectrum.
In addition, the Commission: (1) extended to 90 days, the 60-day
non-delinquency period for payments not made by the payment resumption
date, and imposed a 5 percent late payment fee for payments made within
this 90-day non-delinquency period; (2) eliminated the build-out
exception to the amnesty option because it is rendered moot by this
modified approach; (3) clarified that a licensee can ``afford'' as many
licenses within an MTA that it can prepay using only the amount of
credit available to the licensee for prepayment, for purposes of the
rule that a licensee electing prepayment that does not have sufficient
funds to prepay all its licenses within an MTA may prepay only the
licenses within the MTA that it can afford; and (4) modified the
payment schedules of all C block licensees so that all payments by all
licensees will be due on the same date.
As stated in a February 24, 1998, Commission Order, C block
licensees have until 60 days after publication of the Reconsideration
Order in the Federal Register to select their payment options. The
Reconsideration Order was published in the Federal Register on April 8,
1998.
By making these adjustments, the Commission will better enable C
block licensees to remain participants in the wireless market and will
provide for an orderly and efficient reauction of returned spectrum,
which will promote competition and the delivery of services to the
public. Our action places the future of the C-Block where it belongs:
in the hands of the licensees and the markets. C-Block licensees will
now have more flexibility in choosing among the options first
established back in September 1997, and they should have greater access
to capital as a result. The American public will benefit from the
increased competition that will develop. The changes we make in this
Order will allow licensees to scale back when they think it is
appropriate, and pursue regional or local business strategies instead
of being forced to make all-or-nothing choices.
Those who choose to stay in the C-Block will pay what they owe but
will operate from more secure financial foundations. Those who decide
to leave the market will do so under reasonable conditions, and will
return valuable spectrum for reauction. I believe we have struck an
equitable balance between providing limited relief to C-Block licensees
experiencing financial distress and ensuring the integrity of our rules
and auctions process. The wireless telephone industry, which is already
the exemplar of fierce competition, will become even more vibrant as a
result.
high-speed internet access for rural communities--706 petitions
Question. One of my biggest telecommunications concerns is how to
accelerate the process of providing access to high-speed Internet and
other advanced data communications services to rural areas. I
understand that the Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC) which serves
my home state of New Mexico has filed a petition with the Commission
seeking the removal of certain regulatory barriers that make it
impractical to provide high-speed Internet access in rural communities.
As I am sure you are aware, the petition asks the Commission to use its
authority under two sections of the Telecommunications Act: Section
706, which allows the FCC to refrain from applying rules which hinder
the deployment of advanced telecommunications capacity, and section 11,
which directs the FCC to cease regulating services which are
competitive.
What steps is the Commission taking to remove the regulatory
barriers to providing high-speed data transmission to rural areas?
Answer. I fully agree that a high priority for this Commission is
to help promote the deployment of high bandwidth services, by incumbent
LEC's and by other providers, including cable companies, wireless
companies and CLEC's. I plan this year to undertake a thorough
examination of the rapidly expanding marketplace of advanced
technologies. We are committed to ensuring that our rules do not stand
unreasonably as obstacles to the development of important new
technologies. We are currently in the process of seeking comment on the
US West petition, and we are committed to giving the petition our full
consideration. As you may know, the Commission will also have the
opportunity to examine related issues in a broader context, in
connection with a Notice of Inquiry we intend to issue, within 30
months of passage of the Act, in satisfaction of our obligations under
section 706(b).
The Commission has undertaken several other initiatives to ensure
that the widest possible array of innovative new data technologies are
available to customers in New Mexico and across the nation. For
example, in the Computer III proceeding, the Commission is currently
reevaluating our regulations that apply to provision of information
services by Bell Operating Companies, like US West. We are examining
our rules to ensure that they are appropriate in light of the rapid
growth and development of the Internet and other technologies.
The Commission also intends to investigate possible revisions to
its network protection regulations to facilitate the rapid development
of high speed digital information transmission services that utilize
the public switched telecommunications network. The Commission plans to
examine the feasibility of increasing power limitations on devices that
operate on the public switched network to allow products like 56 kbps
modems to operate at the maximum speed that the network can safely
accommodate.
In the context of universal service, the Commission has adopted
discount mechanisms that will promote advanced telecommunications in
rural areas. The section 254 universal service provisions were a
bipartisan Congressional initiative to make sure all of our nation's
elementary and secondary schools, classrooms, and libraries, and rural
health care providers have access to advanced telecommunications. The
discount mechanism facilitates deployment of advanced technologies to
schools, libraries and rural health care centers--and in so doing,
brings those advanced technologies further into the communities and
closer to the home. In addition, several parties to the universal
service proceeding have requested that the Commission reconsider the
definition of one supported service, voice grade access, in order to
allow rural subscribers to receive the same level of service, such as
Internet access, as urban subscribers. The Commission has these
requests under consideration.
Question. If nothing is done to remove the barriers to allow the
RBOC's to provide these services, how can you ensure the Committee that
rural communities in New Mexico and other states will get high-speed
Internet access as soon as possible?
Answer. The availability of high-speed Internet access to all
Americans is of vital importance to the Commission. Towards that end,
as outlined above, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure
that we are doing all we can to encourage the availability of such
access in rural areas of the country. Both in connection with the 706
petitions filed by US West and several other RBOC's, and within the
broader context of our notice of inquiry on advanced telecommunications
capability, we will specifically examine ways to ensure that rural
communities obtain access to high-speed data services as quickly as
possible, and will take all necessary reasonable steps to make this
objective a reality.
Question. Are there other Internet Service Providers who can
deliver similar services in rural areas? If not, what are the potential
benefits and pitfalls to providing the RBOC's with an exemption for
purely interLATA data transmission?
Answer. In many areas, cable and wireless service providers have
begun offering high-speed access to the Internet to subscribers.
Although the Commission does not maintain statistics on the services
offered by Internet Service Providers (ISP's), it is possible that
cable and wireless providers may be delivering, or will deliver in the
future, high-speed data services similar to those proposed by US West
and the other RBOC's that have filed Section 706 forbearance petitions.
We are mindful of the importance of ensuring that rural communities
have access to the Internet, and we are aware that it may be more
difficult to obtain access to high-speed data services in rural
communities than in urban areas. As described above, in several
proceedings, the Commission will be examining how best to promote
access to high-speed data services in rural communities.
Importantly, we will examine these issues in connection with our
consideration of the section 706 petitions filed by US West and several
other RBOC's. While we are encouraged that these petitions demonstrate
the RBOC's' interest in providing new data services to rural markets,
it would be premature to comment on the benefits and pitfalls of
providing the RBOC's with an exemption to provide interLATA data
transmission before the record on the petitions has been completed. We
are currently in the process of soliciting comments from interested
parties on these petitions, and the record will close on May 6, 1998.
We look forward to having a complete record with which to commence a
thorough examination of the issues.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
706 petitions
Question. I understand that US West is seeking permission to offer
broadband data services in smaller communities within Colorado and
other western states. The basis of the petition is Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires the FCC to forbear from
regulation in order to promote investment in advanced
telecommunications services. US West claims that existing regulations
make it impractical for the company to build digital data facilities in
less urban areas. For example, several universities in Colorado, Utah,
and New Mexico have asked US West to build a high-speed data network
connecting them, and US West could not meet their requirements because
of these regulations. I want all communities in Colorado to have access
to high-speed data services as soon as possible, and I would appreciate
your thoughts on US West's position.
Has the Commission undertaken any other initiatives to date to
bring advanced telecommunications services to rural services? I want to
make sure that the Commission will give serious consideration to US
West's request.
Answer. A high priority for this Commission is to help promote the
deployment of high bandwidth services, by incumbent LEC's and by other
providers, including cable companies, wireless companies and CLEC's. I
plan this year to undertake a thorough examination of the rapidly
expanding marketplace of advanced technologies. We are committed to
ensuring that our rules do not stand unreasonably as obstacles to the
development of important new technologies. We are currently in the
process of seeking comment on the US West petition, and we are
committed to giving the petition our full consideration. As you may
know, the Commission will also have the opportunity to examine related
issues in a broader context, in connection with a Notice of Inquiry we
intend to issue, within 30 months of passage of the Act, in
satisfaction of our obligations under section 706(b).
The Commission has undertaken several other initiatives to ensure
that the widest possible array of innovative new data technologies are
available to customers in New Mexico and across the nation. For
example, in the Computer III proceeding, the Commission is currently
reevaluating our regulations that apply to provision of information
services by Bell Operating Companies, like US West. We are examining
our rules to ensure that they are appropriate in light of the rapid
growth and development of the Internet and other technologies.
The Commission also intends to investigate possible revisions to
its network protection regulations to facilitate the rapid development
of high speed digital information transmission services that utilize
the public switched telecommunications network. The Commission plans to
examine the feasibility of increasing power limitations on devices that
operate on the public switched network to allow products like 56 kbps
modems to operate at the maximum speed that the network can safely
accommodate.
In the context of universal service, the Commission has adopted
discount mechanisms that will promote advanced telecommunications in
rural areas. The Section 254 universal service provisions were a
bipartisan Congressional initiative to make sure all of our nation's
elementary and secondary schools, classrooms, and libraries, and rural
health care providers have access to advanced telecommunications. The
discount mechanism facilitates deployment of advanced technologies to
schools, libraries and rural health care centers--and in so doing,
brings those advanced technologies further into the communities and
closer to the home. In addition, several parties to the universal
service proceeding have requested that the Commission reconsider the
definition of one supported service, voice grade access, in order to
allow rural subscribers to receive the same level of service, such as
Internet access, as urban subscribers. The Commission has these
requests under consideration.
Question. Will you keep us fully informed of your progress on this
matter? When do you expect to make a final decision on the petition?
Answer. We have sought comments from interested parties on the
issues raised by the US West petition, and the record closes on May 6,
1998. As soon as we have received all of the comments, Commission staff
will begin evaluating the important issues raised by the petition. We
are committed to keeping Members of Congress fully informed of our
progress on this matter.
slamming
Question. Long-distance slamming is a growing consumer problem in
my home state of Colorado and across the country. Slamming is a serious
problem, especially for the elderly and small business. And it's
getting worse. I also understand that the FCC has identified slamming
as the leading, and fastest growing, category of phone-related
complaints received by its Customer Bureau.
I had the pleasure of participating at a field hearing on the
slamming issue in Denver last October. At that hearing, your colleague,
Commissioner Ness, said that new and improved anti-slamming rules would
be introduced by the end of 1997.
Consumers are looking to the FCC's leadership to develop strong,
enforceable rules that target the unethical and criminal behavior of
the long-distance companies responsible for this problem--without
creating more regulatory hassles for consumers and honest companies. We
hope the FCC will move quickly and forcefully on this issue.
Where does that process stand, and when can we expect these long-
awaited rules to be released?
Answer. The Commission has proposed rules to modify and strengthen
our existing slamming rules which predated the 1996 Act, and to
implement Section 258 of the Communications Act. Section 258 of the Act
makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to ``submit or
execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone
exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with
such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' The
section further provides that a telecommunications carrier that
violates the Commission's verification procedures and that collects
charges for telephone exchange service or telephone toll service from a
subscriber ``shall be liable to the carrier previously selected by the
subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid by such subscriber
after such violation.''
I anticipate that the Commission will adopt these rules within the
next two months.
Question. What specific new initiatives does the Commission plan to
adopt to curb slamming?
Answer. Because the rulemaking is pending, the Commission is not in
a position to state with certainty what specific initiatives will be
adopted. The Commission is considering several proposals to enhance our
ability to protect consumers from slamming. Among other things, the
Commission has proposed restricting the methods by which carriers must
verify changes to their presubscribed carriers, because some currently
authorized methods appear to be ineffective against slamming.
Furthermore, the Commission is considering whether to absolve consumers
of liability for charges incurred after being slammed, as well as other
measures designed to eliminate carriers' economic incentive to slam.
The Commission is also considering expanding the scope of its rules to
apply to changes to a consumer's local service, as well as long
distance service.
universal service
Question. As I have written to the Commission and the Joint Board,
the current 75 percent state/25 percent federal funding formula for
universal service is very troubling to me and my constituents in
Colorado.
As former general counsel at the FCC, do you feel obligated to
continue the policies of the past Commission?
Answer. As Chairman of the FCC, I approach issues facing the
Commission, including the issue of federal and state responsibility for
universal service, with an open mind. As set out in greater detail in
the Commissioner's Report to Congress on Universal Service, we are
committed to ensuring ``specific, sufficient'' and predictable
universal service support. We will be revisiting the issue of the
amount of federal funding before the full implementation of the new
universal service mechanism, which is set for January 1, 1999. I also
should note that the funding formula does not apply to rural local
telephone companies, only the major telephone companies. Rural local
telephone companies will continue to receive the same levels of support
as they have received historically.
In the May, 1997 Order, the Commission observed that, through the
process of separations, approximately 25 percent of universal service
support historically had been funded through federal support
mechanisms. What the Commission did not state expressly, however, was
that some areas of our country currently receive more than 25 percent
federal universal service support. In these areas, it makes little
sense to limit federal support to 25 percent. Even beyond these
baseline levels, I believe we all recognize that in some instances the
proportion of federal support will have to increase. It is my intention
to see to it that such additional support is forthcoming.
During the time I have been Chairman, we have been engaged in an
on-going dialogue with the states and others on these issues. I remain
committed to working with the states and the affected industries,
including proponents of every viewpoint, to determine along with my
colleagues the appropriate amount of federal support needed to maintain
the goals of universal service at reasonable and affordable rates in a
competitive environment.
Question. Do you believe the federal portion of universal service
support should be increased to ensure customers in rural, high-cost
areas continue to have access to affordable phone service?
Answer. A paramount objective of the Commission's implementation of
universal service reform is to continue to ensure that rates remain
affordable in rural areas. This objective, however, must now be
achieved in a manner that can be sustained as telephone service
competition begins, especially in urban areas. The Commission's May 8,
1997 Universal Service Order was the first action in an ongoing effort
to continue to ensure universal service, including adequate support for
telephone service in rural America.
Universal service policy currently is advanced through intrastate
and interstate support mechanisms. The intrastate mechanisms are built
into state-regulated intrastate rates--such as through statewide rate
averaging and the above-cost pricing of business rates, toll rates,
intrastate access rates, and vertical features (e.g., call forwarding).
The interstate mechanisms are built into rates for interstate services
over which the FCC has jurisdiction, which are also averaged and have
been structured to collect some of the cost of providing service to
rural and low-volume customers through charges to urban and higher-
volume customers. Although these policies of implicit universal service
support worked well in a monopoly environment, they are not sustainable
in the competitive telecommunications market that the Act envisions.
Thus, it is imperative for both the Commission and the state
commissions carefully to examine the rates for services within their
respective jurisdictions and to identify and quantify the amount of
universal service subsidy currently being contributed implicitly
through existing interstate and intrastate rates to support universal
service.
With respect to large telephone companies, such as the Bell
Operating Companies, the Commission has begun this process through its
access charge reform and universal service decisions. These actions
should enable us to quantify the implicit universal service support
currently contained in the interstate access rates that are assessed by
these companies. Pursuant to the requirements of the Communications
Act, that support will then be made explicit, will be funded through
contributions by all carriers and other providers of interstate
telecommunications service, and will be removed from access charges so
that large telephone companies do not recover their costs twice. As we
move from implicit to explicit support, we see no reason to reduce
interstate support for areas that currently receive interstate support.
No state should receive less federal high cost assistance than it
currently receives.
Some state commissions have undertaken, and I expect that many more
states will undertake, the same process with respect to intrastate
rates so that the existing levels of universal service support
currently provided through intrastate rates can continue to be
sustained in a competitive market. The Commission is currently
consulting with the states and other parties about this issue, and will
carefully consider input from the state members of the Joint Board and
other state regulators in any decision. We also recognize that Congress
assigned to this Commission, after consultation with the Joint Board,
the ultimate responsibility for establishing policies that ensure that:
(1) quality services are available at just, reasonable and affordable
rates; (2) all consumers have ``access to telecommunications and
information services'' at rates that are reasonably comparable to the
rates charged for similar services in urban areas; and (3) there are
``specific, predictable, and sufficient'' federal and state mechanisms
to preserve and advance universal service. We are committed to
implementing section 254 consistent with these objectives.
Small, rural telephone companies will not be affected by these
changes in universal service support mechanisms. The Commission, in its
May 8, 1997 Order, maintained existing support levels for rural
telephone companies.
Question. Will the FCC be able to meet its January 1, 1999 deadline
for creating the high-cost fund for non-rural phone companies?
Answer. The Commission stated in the May 8, 1997 Order that non-
rural carriers would begin receiving high cost support based on a
forward-looking economic cost mechanism on January 1, 1999. To reach
this goal, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in July 1997, and has met extensively with the state Joint
Board staff, members of industry, and other interested parties. Many
actions need to be taken to complete the new mechanism that will take
effect on January 1, 1999. The Commission intends to release an order
in the near term that will select the fixed assumptions and algorithms
for a mechanism to determine non-rural carriers' forward-looking costs.
The Commission also stated in the May 8, 1997 Order that it would adopt
a complete mechanism, including the prices of all components of the
network and other inputs, by August 1998. The Commission is working
actively to meet the timetable established in the May 8, 1997 Order,
which calls for non-rural carriers to begin receiving support based on
a forward-looking economic cost mechanism on January 1, 1999.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
Question. INTELSAT and its Signatories have been working to
privatize a portion of its operations in the form of a new company,
``INC''. Will INC's structure allow INC to be independent of INTELSAT
and a pro-competitive participant in the marketplace?
Answer. The INTELSAT Assembly of Parties decided on March 31, 1998
to create a spin-off, temporarily called New Skies, N.V., to be
incorporated in The Netherlands. The United States associated
provisionally with the Assembly decision and in doing so expressed the
hope that the decision would result in a structuring of New Skies that
is consistent with the Commission's pro-competitive policy.
Nonetheless, in the written statement of the United States appended to
the decision of the Assembly of Parties, the United States noted
continuing uncertainty as to whether true separation and independence
between INTELSAT and New Skies would be achieved in a timely way so as
to ensure that New Skies is not accorded preferential market access and
does not unfairly benefit from its unique INTELSAT heritage. The
Commission will have to evaluate how New Skies' entry into the U.S.
market will impact competition in the provision of satellite services.
That evaluation will be based on statutory requirements, the public
record, and Commission rules implementing the 1997 World Trade
Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services as it
applies to satellite services. As is stated in the written statement of
the United States cited above, this review will involve consideration
of competition policy criteria.
payphone calls
Question. What impact will the increased cost of making 800/888
access code and 0+ calls from payphones have on 800 subscribers and
consumers and how can the FCC ensure that these rates remain
affordable?
Answer. In the payphone order, the Commission sought to implement
Section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, which specifically
directs the Commission to ``establish a per call compensation plan to
ensure that all payphone service providers are fairly compensated for
each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their
payphone * * *.'' The Commission also sought to abide by the provisions
of Section 228(c)(7)(A) which provides that common carriers shall
prohibit ``the use of any 800 telephone number, or other telephone
number advertised or widely understood to be toll free, in a manner
that would result in the calling party being assessed, by virtue of
completing the call, a charge for the call.'' In its proceeding to
implement Section 276, the Commission concluded, after seeking comment
from the public, that subscriber 800 and access code calls must be
compensated and that the best way to ensure that the payphone providers
received fair compensation was to allow the marketplace to determine
compensation for such calls. The Commission, however, established a
default rate of $0.284 per call, absent a negotiated rate, for two
years to enable carriers and payphone providers to transition to the
deregulated marketplace. The $0.284 default compensation rate for toll-
free payphone calls is designed to give payphone owners fair
compensation for the use of their payphones, as required by law. Before
establishing the payphone compensation rate, the Commission asked for
and received payphone cost data from several companies, and took this
data into account when establishing the $0.284 rate as fair
compensation. This charge is not owed for 0+ calls, however, except in
limited circumstances where the payphone provider does not have a
contract which otherwise compensates the payphone provider for such
calls.
The Commission's rules require this compensation to be paid by the
interexchange carrier that receives the 800 or access code call because
that carrier is the primary beneficiary of such calls on its network.
Prior to the 1996 Act, carriers and their customers received the
benefits of these calls without the payphone provider--which makes the
call possible--receiving any compensation. Although IXC's may pass on
these charges to their 800 and access code customers, the Act correctly
requires that payphone providers receive fair compensation for the
service they provide in order ``to promote the widespread deployment of
payphones.''
Subscribers of 800 services have several options if they do not
want to pay payphone providers for the use of their payphones. Once
technology is fully in place to allow carriers to identify calls from
payphones, 800 subscribers will have the option of blocking such calls.
They are also able to negotiate contracts with long distance carriers,
and change long distance carriers to obtain more favorable terms. Long
distance companies also may negotiate with payphone owners to lower the
payphone compensation price. The long distance company could then use
that advantage to attract more customers.
While the Commission relied on market forces in establishing the
compensation scheme mandated by the Act, our orders also focused on
consumers by establishing safeguards to ensure their protection. The
orders recognize that payphones serve an important role in allowing
people to place calls when they are away from the home or office. The
new rules require that all payphones must provide free access to dial
tone, whereas many parties to the proceeding urged the Commission to
require consumers to use coins to make toll-free and access code calls.
They also establish guidelines by which states can provide public
interest payphones in areas that may not be sufficiently profitable to
support the placement of a payphone. Such public interest payphones
will help to ensure the viability of payphones in areas where they
serve important public interests in public health, safety and welfare.
Further, the rules require that payphone providers must prominently
display the local coin rate they choose to charge at each payphone, so
that consumers will have full information about the charges and can
make an informed choice to use the payphones. The orders also require
that every payphone provide free access to both emergency services and
to telecommunications relay service (TRS) calls for the hearing
disabled. Ultimately, the compensation provisions are designed to
achieve Congress' stated objective: ``to promote the widespread
deployment of payphones to the benefit of the general public.''
Finally, the orders specifically provide that the Commission retains
discretion to review our deregulatory actions and evaluate whether
marketplace dysfunctions in certain locational monopolies exist and
should be addressed. Indeed, our orders ask the states to report to us
any instances of such market failure and allow the states to request
Commission action to prevent payphone abuses.
Question. An 800/888 call is free to the calling party. This may
provide an incentive for individuals to make such calls in an attempt
to obtain greater revenues from their payphones. What is the potential
for this type of fraud to occur and what can be done to minimize that
potential?
Answer. In the Commission's payphone orders, the Commission
recognized the potential for such fraud. The Commission stated that,
pursuant to authority under the Act and its rules, it would
aggressively take civil enforcement action against a payphone provider
who deliberately violates the Commission's compensation rules by
placing toll free calls simply to obtain compensation from carriers.
Moreover, such an act may be fraud by wire and subject to criminal
penalties under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The Commission stated that if it
received information that a payphone provider was using its payphone
for this purpose, or allowing someone else to use its payphone for this
purpose, the Commission will refer the matter to the appropriate law
enforcement agencies for criminal prosecution. The Commission also
stated that it would continue to monitor developments in this area and
respond to specific requests from carriers and payphone service
providers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Question. In light of the reality that Hawaii currently does not
have DBS service, what is the FCC doing to ensure that DBS service
becomes a permanent reality for the State of Hawaii?
Answer. The FCC believes it is of great importance that DBS service
be provided to Hawaii so that residents of Hawaii can enjoy the unique
digital services offered by DBS and benefit from the competitive
pressure DBS puts on cable. In order to promote DBS service to Hawaii
and Alaska, the Commission issued an order in December 1995 that
requires all DBS licensees to provide service to those states from
orbital locations where it is technically feasible to do so. Revision
of the Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,
11 FCC Rcd 9712 (1995).
In response to the rules we established in this Order, three of our
DBS licensees (EchoStar, MCI, and Tempo, who all have orbital locations
from which it is technically feasible to provide service to Hawaii)
have indicated to us recently that they intend to provide service to
Hawaii as soon as they initiate their DBS service. EchoStar has
recently stated that it intends to provide service to Hawaii in the
summer of 1998. In our recently issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
our service rules for DBS, Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service, FCC 98-26 (released February 26, 1998), we asked
whether there was anything further the Commission should do to promote
service to Hawaii and we will closely examine any comments made in that
proceeding.
rate integration and geographic rate averaging
Question. What is the status of pending FCC proceedings with
respect to the issues of rate integration and geographic rate
averaging?
Answer. The following proceedings are pending concerning rate
integration and geographic rate averaging:
American Samoa Rate Integration Plan.--In the July, 1997 Rate
Integration Implementation Order, the Common Carrier Bureau deferred
implementation of rate integration for services provided to American
Samoa pending consideration of a rate integration plan to be filed by
the American Samoa government (ASG). ASG subsequently filed a rate
integration plan. The formal comment period on the plan closed on
November 26, 1997. The Common Carrier Bureau is currently evaluating
the plan.
Rate Integration for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
Providers Reconsideration.--CMRS providers filed petitions for
reconsideration of the July 1997 Rate Integration Reconsideration Order
in which the Commission determined, inter alia, that rate integration
requirements are applicable to CMRS providers. In October, 1997 the
Commission stayed application of some aspects of rate integration
requirements to CMRS providers pending review of the petitions for
reconsideration. The Common Carrier Bureau, in consultation with the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, is evaluating issues concerning
rate integration of services provided by CMRS providers.
Application of Rate Integration to American Mobile Satellite
Corporation (AMSC).--AMSC has requested an extension of time to comply
with rate integration requirements. In August 1996, the Common Carrier
Bureau granted AMSC a waiver of rate integration requirements pending
further consideration of its request. This matter remains pending.
Petitions for Reconsideration of Geographic Rate Averaging Rules.--
Several parties requested reconsideration of the August 1996 Rate
Averaging and Rate Integration Order to permit regional deaveraging of
long distance rates in response to provision of long distance service
by regional carriers. The record closed on these petitions in October,
1996.
Question. INTELSAT and its Signatories have been working to
privatize a portion of its operations in the form of a new company,
``INC''. Will INC's structure allow INC to be independent of INTELSAT
and a pro-competitive participant in the marketplace?
Answer. The INTELSAT Assembly of Parties decided on March 31, 1998
to create a spin-off, temporarily called New Skies, N.V., to be
incorporated in The Netherlands. The United States associated
provisionally with the Assembly decision and in doing so expressed the
hope that the decision would result in a structuring of New Skies that
is consistent with the Commission's pro-competitive policy.
Nonetheless, in the written statement of the United States appended to
the decision of the Assembly of Parties, the United States noted
continuing uncertainty as to whether true separation and independence
between INTELSAT and New Skies would be achieved in a timely way so as
to ensure that New Skies is not accorded preferential market access and
does not unfairly benefit from its unique INTELSAT heritage. The
Commission will have to evaluate how New Skies' entry into the U.S.
market will impact competition in the provision of satellite services.
That evaluation will be based on statutory requirements, the public
record, and Commission rules implementing the 1997 World Trade
Organization Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services as it
applies to satellite services.\1\ As is stated in the written statement
of the United States cited above, this review will involve
consideration of competition policy criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow
Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to provide Domestic and International
Service in the United States (DISCO II Order)--FCC 97-399, 62 Rcd. Reg.
64.167 (released December 4, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In light of the release of its digital plan, what is the
FCC doing to ensure that low power television (``LPTV'') stations such
as Honolulu LPTV channel 60 are able to provide service?
Answer. The Commission has long recognized the importance of low
power TV stations (``LPTV''). These stations provide valued service in
hundreds of urban and rural communities throughout the country.
Significantly, in many communities, they offer the only source of local
TV programming. Since the service began in 1982, more than 2,000 LPTV
stations have been authorized, all on a secondary, noninterfering basis
with respect to full service TV stations. Due to an insufficient supply
of TV spectrum, it was not possible to include LPTV stations in the
FCC's digital TV (``DTV'') allotment plan, or protect LPTV stations
against interference from DTV stations.
In the DTV proceeding, the Commission adopted several
administrative and technical measures to intended to minimize
disruption to LPTV service by DTV stations and by the reallocation of
channels 60 to 69 to other services. First and foremost, LPTV stations
may continue to operate on their current channels, provided they do not
interfere with DTV stations. With respect to the channel 60 LPTV
station in Honolulu, I am advised that there are no DTV channel
allotments anywhere in Hawaii that would conflict with channel 60.
Thus, as long as the station does not interfere with any future primary
services on channel 60 to 69, it may operate on channel 60 until the
end of the DTV transition period in the year 2006. Note that the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires all broadcast stations, including
LPTV stations, to vacate use of channels 60 to 69 by that time.
The Commission has provided that LPTV stations authorized on
channels 60 to 69 or those stations having an interference conflict
with a DTV station or an allotment in the DTV allotment table may: (1)
on a first-come first-served basis, request authorization for a
replacement channel without being subject to competing applications,
(2) take into account the signal blocking effects of mountainous
terrain in considering the potential of their stations to cause
interference, (3) negotiate interference agreements with each other,
and (4) operate with substantially increased power, if necessary to
overcome interference to the reception of their stations. Finally,
wherever possible, the Commission eliminated or relaxed several
interference standards to help displaced LPTV stations to secure
replacement channels.
Question. What is the FCC doing to ensure that consolidation in the
radio broadcast marketplace does not result in a loss of diverse and
local programming?
Answer. I am very concerned that consolidation in the radio
broadcasting marketplace is leading to a loss of diverse local
programming. There has been a good deal of consolidation in the radio
industry as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
eliminated the national radio ownership limits and significantly
relaxed the local radio ownership rules. The Commission has monitored
the impact of these legislatively mandated changes, and, as provided by
the 1996 Act, has recently issued a Notice of Inquiry that, among other
things, seeks to review these changes. The Notice of Inquiry seeks
comment from the public on the impact of these changes on diversity and
local programming and on whether the FCC should modify the local radio
ownership rules in any respect. The consolidation in the radio industry
will also be a factor in the FCC's pending review of the radio-
television cross-ownership rule. In reviewing this rule, as well as the
local radio ownership limits, the Commission will be guided by its
longstanding goal of promoting competition and diversity in
broadcasting.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
section 271
Question. There have been four separate applications filed with the
FCC by Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC) to get into the long
distance business, none of which have been approved. Have you provided
any RBOC, formally or informally, a complete and final list of all the
things they must do to gain approval to enter the long distance
business?
If so, could you share the specifics with us?
If not, why not?
Answer. Last December, I decided to initiate a dialogue between the
Commission and the BOC's, competitive local exchange providers,
interexchange carriers, and other interested participants. This effort
reflects my desire to provide additional guidance to all participants
in the 271 application process on issues that have not yet been
addressed in the Commission's decisions on previous applications. It is
also intended to increase the predictability of the section 271 process
for all involved.
I have directed the Bureau staff to be as open and responsive as
possible to all the participants when discussing the factors the staff
considers important in evaluating whether a BOC has fully implemented
the competitive checklist. In order to respond to your request for
views on each checklist item, I have attached summaries, prepared by
Common Carrier Bureau staff, addressing each item of the competitive
checklist in further detail. The information included in these
summaries reflects the discussions that Bureau staff have had since the
dialogue began in January. Because the dialogue is an on-going process,
additional issues may arise as discussions progress. These Bureau staff
views are not binding on the Commissioners. Commission action on
individual section 271 applications will be decided on the basis of the
record filed in each proceeding.
attachment a
overview of common carrier bureau staff summaries
The following paragraphs present a brief outline of the fourteen
checklist items. An important aspect of section 271 is that local
markets remain open after BOC entry into long distance. Ongoing
performance monitoring once a BOC receives section 271 authorization is
critical. Under the statute, the Commission can exercise its
enforcement powers under section 271(d)(6) if a BOC has ceased to meet
the conditions required for approval.
Interconnection.--This checklist item requires a BOC to allow
requesting carriers to link their networks to the BOC's network for the
mutual exchange of traffic. To fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation
under checklist item (i), a BOC must show that it provides
interconnection at a level of quality that is indistinguishable from
that which the BOC provides itself, a subsidiary, or any other party.
Interconnection is necessary so that local exchange customers served by
one company are able to call customers served by a different company.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(i).
Unbundled Network Elements.--Network elements are the specific
segments of the telephone network. ``Access'' to an unbundled network
element means that the BOC must provide a connection to the network
element at any technically feasible point under rates, terms, and
conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. To fulfill
the nondiscrimination obligation under checklist item (ii), the BOC
must provide access to the BOC's OSS, meaning the information, systems,
and personnel necessary to support the elements and services. This is
important because access to the BOC's OSS provides new entrants with
the ability to order service for their new customers and allows new
entrants to communicate effectively with the BOC regarding such basic
activities as placing orders and providing repair and maintenance
service for customers. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).
In addition, a BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to network
elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such
elements. The use of network elements in conjunction with a competing
carrier's network is an important entry strategy for new entrants as
new entrants will most likely not have deployed fully redundant
networks when they initially enter the local market. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii).
Poles, Ducts, Conduits, and Rights-of-Way.--Telephone company wires
must be attached to, or pass through, poles, ducts, conduits, and
rights-of-way. In order to fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation
under checklist item (iii), a BOC must show that competing providers
can obtain access to its poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way
within reasonable time frames and on reasonable terms and conditions,
with a minimum of administrative costs, and consistent with fair and
efficient practices. Failure by the BOC to provide such access may
prevent competing carriers from serving certain customers. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iii).
Loops.--Local loops are the wires, poles, and conduit that connect
the telephone company end office to the customer's home or business. To
satisfy the nondiscrimination requirement under checklist item (iv), a
BOC must demonstrate that it can efficiently furnish unbundled loops to
competing carriers within a reasonable timeframe, with a minimum level
of service disruption, and at the same level of service quality.
Nondiscriminatory access to unbundled local loops ensures that new
entrants can provide quality telephone service promptly to new
customers without constructing new loops to each customer's home or
business. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(iv).
Transport.--Transport facilities are the trunks that connect
different switches within the BOC's network or those switches with long
distance carriers' facilities. This checklist item requires a BOC to
provide requesting carriers with transmission links that are dedicated
to the use of the requesting carrier as well as links that are shared
with other carriers, including the BOC. Nondiscriminatory access to
transport ensures that consumer calls travelling over competing carrier
lines are completed properly. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(v).
Switching.--A switch connects end user lines to other end user
lines, and connects end user lines to trunks used for transporting a
call to another central office or to a long-distance carrier. Switches
can also provide end users with ``vertical features'' such as call
waiting, call forwarding, and caller ID, and can direct a call to a
specific trunk, such as to a competing carrier's operator services. To
meet this checklist item, the BOC must demonstrate that it provides
nondiscriminatory access to all of the features, functions, and
capabilities of the unbundled local switch. This checklist item is
important because it allows the new entrant to make use of the BOC's
switch, and it enables customers of the new entrant to have access to
the same features a BOC provides, such as call waiting. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(vi).
911 and E911, Directory Assistance, and Operator Services.--911 and
E911 services transmit calls from end users to emergency personnel.
Customers use directory assistance and operator services to obtain
listing information and other call completion services. Checklist item
(vii) requires the BOC to provide competing providers with
nondiscriminatory access to 911/E911, operator services, and directory
assistance, i.e., access that is the same as the access the BOC
provides to itself. It is critical that BOC's provide new entrants with
accurate and nondiscriminatory access to 911/E911 services so that
customers subscribing to services provided by new entrants are able to
reach emergency assistance. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(vii).
White Pages.--White pages are the directory listings of telephone
numbers of residences and businesses in a particular area. This
checklist item ensures that white pages listings for customers of
different carriers are comparable, in terms of accuracy and
reliability, notwithstanding the identity of the customer's telephone
service provider. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(viii).
Numbering Administration.--Telephone numbers are presently assigned
to telecommunications carriers based on the first three digits of the
local number known as ``NXX'' codes. To fulfill the nondiscrimination
obligation in checklist item (ix), a BOC must provide competing
carriers with the same access to new NXX codes within an area code that
the BOC enjoys. This checklist item ensures that competing providers
have the same access to new telephone numbers as the BOC does. 47
U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).
Databases and Signaling.--Databases and associated signaling refer
to the call-related databases and signaling systems that are used for
billing and collection or the transmission, routing, or other provision
of a telecommunications service. To fulfill the nondiscrimination
obligation in checklist item (x), a BOC must demonstrate that it
provides new entrants with the same access to these call-related
databases and associated signaling that it provides itself. This
checklist item ensures that competing providers have the same ability
to transmit, route, complete and bill for telephone calls as the BOC.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(x).
Number Portability.--Number portability enables consumers to take
their phone number with them when they change local telephone
companies. To fulfill checklist item (xi), the BOC must provide number
portability in a nondiscriminatory manner as soon as reasonably
possible following a request from a competitor. This checklist item is
important because it permits consumers to change service providers
without having to change their telephone number. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xi).
Dialing Parity.--Local dialing parity permits customers to make
local calls in the same manner regardless of who their service provider
is. To fulfill the nondiscrimination obligation in checklist item
(xii), a BOC must establish that customers of a competing provider are
able to dial the same number of digits to make a local telephone call,
notwithstanding the identity of the customer's, or the called party's,
local telephone service provider. In addition, the dialing delay
experienced by the customers of a competing provider should not be
greater than that experienced by customers of the BOC. This checklist
item ensures that consumers are not inconvenienced in how they make
calls simply because they subscribe to a competing provider for local
telephone service. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xii).
Reciprocal Compensation.--Reciprocal compensation requires the
BOC's to compensate new entrants and wireless carriers for the cost of
transporting and terminating a local call from the BOC, and requires
the new entrants and wireless carriers to compensate the BOC for the
cost of transporting and terminating a local call from the new entrant
or wireless carrier. Alternatively, the BOC and the new entrant or
wireless carrier may enter into an arrangement whereby neither of the
two carriers charges the other for terminating local traffic that
originates on the other carrier's network. This checklist item is
important to ensuring that all carriers that originate calls bear the
cost of terminating such calls. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii).
Resale.--This checklist item requires the BOC to offer to
telecommunications carriers at wholesale rates all of the retail
telecommunications services it provides to subscribers that are not
telecommunications carriers. The BOC is required to make its
telecommunications services available for resale without unreasonable
or discriminatory conditions or limitations. This checklist item is
important because it establishes a mode of entry into the local market
for carriers that have not deployed their own facilities. 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv).
Another important aspect of section 271 is the pricing of unbundled
network elements. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit recently held that the FCC should ``confine its pricing role
under section 271(d)(3)(A) to determining whether applicant BOC's have
complied with the pricing methodology and rules adopted by the state
commissions and in effect in the respective states in which such BOC's
seek to provide in-region, interLATA services.'' Iowa Utilities Board
v. FCC, Order on Motions for Enforcement of the Mandate, No. 96-3321
(Jan. 22, 1998), petition for cert. filed. Accordingly, these staff
summaries do not focus on pricing issues.
checklist item (i): interconnection
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
to provide or offer to provide ``[i]nterconnection in accordance with
the requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(2) imposes upon incumbent LEC's ``the duty to
provide, for the facilities and equipment of any requesting
telecommunications carrier, interconnection with the local exchange
carrier's network * * * for the transmission and routing of telephone
exchange service and exchange access.''
Pursuant to section 251(c)(2), such interconnection must be: (1)
provided ``at any technically feasible point within the carrier's
network;'' (2) ``at least equal in quality to that provided by the
local exchange carrier to itself or * * * [to] any other party to which
the carrier provides interconnection;'' and (3) provided on rates,
terms, and conditions that are ``just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
252.''
Section 251(c)(6) requires incumbent LEC's to provide physical
collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection unless the LEC
can demonstrate that physical collocation is not practical for
technical reasons or because of space limitations. In that event, the
incumbent LEC is still obligated to provide virtual collocation of
interconnection equipment.
Section 252(d)(1) of the Act states that ``[d]eterminations by a
State commission of the just and reasonable rate for the
interconnection of facilities and equipment for purposes of [section
251(c)(2)] * * * (A) shall be (i) based on the cost * * * of providing
the interconnection * * * and (ii) nondiscriminatory, and (B) may
include a reasonable profit.''
Checklist Discussion
Any Technically Feasible Point
Competing carriers have the right to deliver traffic terminating on
an incumbent LEC's network at any technically feasible point on that
network. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(2); 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(2); Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 209.
Methods of Interconnection
Competing carriers may choose any technically feasible method of
interconnection at a particular point. Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 549. Technically feasible methods of interconnection
include, but are not limited to: physical collocation and virtual
collocation at the premises of an incumbent LEC and meet point
interconnection arrangements. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.321; Local Competition
First Report and Order at para. 553.
The incumbent LEC must submit to the state commission detailed
floor plans or diagrams of any premises where the incumbent LEC claims
that physical collocation is not practical because of space
limitations. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.321(f); Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 602.
Bureau staff believes that a BOC must have processes and procedures
in place to ensure that physical and virtual collocation arrangements
are available on terms and conditions that are ``just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory'' in accordance with section 251(c)(6). Useful
information to determine compliance with this checklist item is the
length of time required for an applicant to process and implement
requests for both physical and virtual collocation. See BellSouth South
Carolina Section 271 Order at para.para. 200-02.
Interconnection that is Equal in Quality
``[T]he equal in quality standard of section 251(c)(2)(C) requires
an incumbent LEC to provide interconnection between its network and
that of a requesting carrier at a level of quality that is at least
indistinguishable from that which the incumbent provides itself, a
subsidiary, an affiliate or any other party.'' Local Competition First
Report and Order at para. 224.
An incumbent LEC must design its ``interconnection facilities to
meet the same technical criteria and service standards, such as
probability of blocking in peak hours and transmission standards, that
are used [for the interoffice trunks] within [its] * * * own
network[].'' 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(3); Local Competition First
Report and Order at para. 224; see also Ameritech Michigan Section 271
Order at para. 255.
The equal in quality obligation is not limited to service quality
perceived by end users, and includes, but is not limited to, service
quality as perceived by the requesting telecommunications carrier. 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(a)(3); Local Competition First Report and Order at
para. 224.
Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist item
is the call completion rate for calls originating on the BOC's network
that terminate with BOC customers and the completion rate for calls
originating on the BOC's network that terminate with competing LEC's'
customers. See Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 235.
Just and Reasonable Rates, Terms, and Conditions of
Interconnection
By providing interconnection to a competitor in a manner less
efficient than the incumbent LEC provides itself, the incumbent LEC
violates the duty to be ``just'' and ``reasonable'' under section
251(c)(2)(D). Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 218.
Nondiscriminatory Rates, Terms, and Conditions of
Interconnection
An incumbent LEC must accommodate a competitor's request for two-
way trunking where technically feasible. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.305(f);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 219.
Bureau staff believes that a BOC must engineer, repair, and
maintain its interconnection trunks to the competing carrier in the
same manner that the BOC performs these functions on its own
interoffice transmission facilities.
Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist
item is the time required for a BOC to identify and repair
outages on interconnection trunks connecting BOC and competing
carrier facilities and the time required for a BOC to identify
and repair outages that disrupt service on its own interoffice
transmission trunks; and a BOC's establishment of standardized
procedures for the ordering and provision of interconnection
trunks.
The BOC must ensure that a competing carrier has sufficient
information about its network to remedy network blockage that occurs
within the BOC's network, but affects both the BOC's customers and the
competing carrier's customers. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
para. 246.
Useful information to determine compliance with this requirement
includes BOC traffic forecasts and data indicating the
percentage of calls originating on the BOC network and
terminating on the BOC's and CLEC's network, respectively.
Establishing appropriate trunking architecture and proper
interconnection arrangements is the responsibility of both the BOC and
competing carriers. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 246.
Bureau staff believes that possible measures that the BOC and
competing carriers can take to remedy trunk blockage problems
include: installing two-way trunking arrangements where
appropriate, allowing direct end office trunking, augmenting
capacity on existing trunk groups, ordering reciprocal inbound
trunk groups in tandem with competing carriers' ordering of
outbound trunk groups, having the necessary equipment and
facilities available to handle trunk augmentation, and
establishing alternate routing for traffic designated for a
competing carrier switch.
Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate that it is meeting
its statutory obligations with respect to interconnection by submitting
performance measurements regarding its provision of interconnection
trunks (installation of new trunks and augmentations to existing trunk
groups) and collocation arrangements (physical and virtual). Such
performance measurements will enable the Commission to determine
whether this checklist item is being provided in accordance with the
applicable statutory standard in terms of timeliness, quality, and
accuracy. Ongoing performance monitoring will assist in ensuring that
the BOC continues to meet its statutory obligations after receiving
section 271 authorization.
checklist item (ii): access to unbundled network elements
Because specific network elements are also addressed in other
checklist items, this discussion only addresses the requirements for
access to all network elements. In particular, this section addresses
(1) the operations support systems (``OSS'') that are necessary to
provide access to other network elements as well as resold services;
and (2) the provision of network elements in a manner that allows
competing carriers to combine such elements.
1. access to operations support systems
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to offer ``nondiscriminatory access to network elements in
accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) of the Act requires BOC's to provide access to
network elements pursuant to ``conditions that are just, reasonable,
and nondiscriminatory * * * .''
Section 252(d)(1) of the Act states that ``[d]eterminations by a
State commission of the just and reasonable rate for * * * network
elements for purposes of [section 251(c)(3)] * * * (A) shall be (i)
based on the cost * * * of providing the * * * network element * * *
and (ii) nondiscriminatory, and (B) may include a reasonable profit.''
Checklist Discussion
The Commission identified the following network elements, which
must be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section
251(c)(3): local loops; network interface devices; local switching;
interoffice transmission facilities; signaling networks and call-
related databases; operations support systems; and operator services
and directory assistance. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319; Local Competition
First Report and Order at para. 516. The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld this finding. Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 808-09.
The Commission has set forth specific requirements for access to
network elements, including, among other things, that timeliness,
quality, and accuracy be substantially the same as the BOC provides to
itself. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.311 and 51.313.
The term ``operations support systems,'' or OSS, refers to the
computer systems, databases, and personnel that incumbent
carriers rely upon to discharge many internal functions
necessary to provide service to their customers. A competing
carrier must obtain access to the same OSS functions (that is,
functions provided by the relevant databases, computer systems,
and personnel) in order to sign up customers, place an order
for services or facilities with the incumbent, track the
progress of that order to completion, receive relevant billing
information from the incumbent, and obtain prompt repair and
maintenance services for its customers.
As outlined in the Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order and the
BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order, the Commission undertakes a
two part inquiry in evaluating whether a BOC is meeting its statutory
obligation to provide competing carriers with nondiscriminatory access
to OSS functions.
First, the BOC must demonstrate that it has deployed the
necessary systems and personnel to provide competing carriers
with access to each of the necessary OSS functions, and that
the BOC has adequately assisted competing carriers in
understanding how to implement and use all of the OSS functions
available to them. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
para. 136; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para.
96.
A BOC must demonstrate that it has developed
electronic and manual interfaces that allow competing
carriers to access all of the OSS functions identified
in the Local Competition First Report and Order.
Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.para. 137-
138; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at
para. 96.
A BOC must also demonstrate that the interfaces used
to access its OSS functions allow competing carriers to
transfer the information received from the BOC to their
own back office systems (e.g., a competing carrier's
billing system) and among the various interfaces
provided by the BOC (e.g., pre-ordering and ordering
interfaces). BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order
at para. 158-161.
The Commission has not specified particular systems
or interfaces a BOC must use to demonstrate compliance
with the statutory nondiscrimination requirements.
Second, the BOC must demonstrate that the OSS functions and
interfaces are operationally ready. Ameritech Michigan Section
271 Order at para. 136; BellSouth South Carolina Section 271
Order at para. 96. In addition, the BOC's deployment of OSS
functions to competing carriers must be able to handle current
demand as well as reasonably foreseeable demand. Ameritech
Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 138; BellSouth South
Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 97.
For those OSS functions a BOC provides to a competing
carrier that are analogous to OSS functions that the
BOC provides to itself, the BOC must provide access to
competing carriers that is equivalent to the level of
access that the BOC provides to itself in terms of
quality, accuracy and timeliness (i.e., it provides OSS
functions in substantially the same time and manner as
it provides to itself). Local Competition First Report
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at para. 517; Ameritech Michigan
Section 271 Order at para. 139, BellSouth South
Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 98.
For OSS functions without a retail analog, the BOC
must demonstrate that the access it provides competing
carriers offers an efficient competitor a meaningful
opportunity to compete. Ameritech Michigan Section 271
Order at para. 139; BellSouth South Carolina Section
271 Order at para. 98. The Commission's orders
emphasize results, not the process used to achieve
those results.
While actual commercial usage is the most probative
evidence that the BOC's OSS functions are operationally
ready, the Commission will also consider, carrier-to-
carrier testing, independent third-party testing, and
internal testing. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order
at para. 138.
Information that compares how the BOC provides access
to OSS functions to itself and to competing carriers is
critical in assessing whether the BOC is providing
nondiscriminatory access to such functions as required
by the statute. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at
para.para. 204-213. Bureau staff, therefore, believes
that a BOC can demonstrate compliance with the
statutory requirements in checklist item (ii) by
submitting comparative performance data, such as the
period required to install a network element, how often
the promised installation dates are met, how well the
competing carrier is informed of the status of its
order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing
access to needed support functions. Ongoing reporting
of these measurements will assist in ensuring that the
BOC continues to meet its statutory obligations after
receiving section 271 authorization.
2. access to combinations of network elements
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) provides that an incumbent LEC ``shall provide
such unbundled elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to
combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications
service.''
Section 251(c)(6) provides that an incumbent LEC has the ``duty to
provide, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory, for physical collocation of equipment necessary for
interconnection or access to unbundled network elements at the premises
of the local exchange carrier.'' Section 251(c)(6) further provides
that an incumbent LEC ``may provide virtual collocation if the local
exchange carrier demonstrates to the State commission that physical
collocation is not practical for technical reasons or because of space
limitations.''
Checklist Discussion
New entrants may provide telecommunications service wholly through
the use of unbundled network elements purchased from incumbent LEC's.
47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.315(a); Local Competition First Report and Order at
para. 328-341; see also Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753, 814 (8th
Cir. 1997).
A ``requesting carrier may choose any particular method of
technically feasible * * * access to unbundled network elements,''
including physical or virtual collocation. Local Competition First
Report and Order at para. 549. Incumbent LEC's must provide technically
feasible methods of obtaining interconnection or access to unbundled
network elements that include, but are not limited to, physical and
virtual collocation at the premises of an incumbent LEC. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.321.
A requesting carrier ``may achieve the capability to provide
telecommunications services completely through access to the unbundled
elements of an incumbent LEC's network.'' Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at
814. Incumbent LEC's must offer network elements in a manner that
allows new entrants to combine them to provide a finished
telecommunications service. Iowa Utils. Bd., 120 F.3d at 814.
A BOC must offer nondiscriminatory access to network elements in a
manner that allows competing carriers to combine such elements in order
to satisfy section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii). 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(c)(3).
While it is unclear from Iowa Utils. Bd. whether the Act requires
unbundled elements to be provided on a physically separated basis, or
whether the Act allows competing carriers to have physical access to
the BOC's' networks in order to combine network elements without the
use of physical collocation, at a minimum, Bureau staff believes that
the BOC must demonstrate that at least one of the methods it offers
satisfies the statutory nondiscrimination requirement. Bureau staff
believes that a BOC may satisfy this requirement by, for example,
providing physical or virtual collocation, direct access, mediated
access, logical or electronic methods for combining network elements,
or combining the elements on behalf of competing carriers for a
separate charge.
The following information would be useful in determining whether
the BOC's method for allowing competing carriers to combine network
elements meets the statutory nondiscrimination requirement:
Length of time for new entrants to obtain and combine network
elements, e.g., time required to build collocation cages; loop
cutover times, etc.
Practical availability of the BOC's selected method for providing
access to network elements, including whether the BOC can meet
current and reasonably foreseeable demand and has identified
the specific terms and conditions for obtaining such access.
checklist item (iii): nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts,
conduits, and rights-of-way
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide or offer to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access
to the poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by
the [BOC] at just and reasonable rates in accordance with the
requirements of section 224.''
Section 224(b) grants the Commission its general authority to carry
out the provisions of section 224. Notwithstanding this general grant
of authority, section 224(c)(1) states that the Commission shall not
regulate rates, terms, and conditions for, or access to, pole
attachments where such matters are regulated by the state.
Checklist Discussion
Bureau staff believes that, if a state has exercised its preemptive
authority under section 224(c)(1), a BOC satisfies its duty under
checklist item (iii) if it complies with the state's, rather than the
Commission's, regulations. See Local Competition First Report and Order
at para. 1239.
There is a preference for negotiations in the pole attachment
context. See Pole Attachment Telecommunications Rate Order at
para.para. 10-21. Nonetheless, where the parties do not arrive at
mutually satisfactory pole attachment arrangements, and if the state
has not exercised its preemptive authority under section 224(c), Bureau
staff believes that the BOC must comply with the statutory requirements
of section 224 and the Commission's implementing regulations to satisfy
the requirement in checklist item (iii) that the BOC provide
nondiscriminatory access to poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way
at just and reasonable rates. See Local Competition First Report and
Order at para. 1239.
Nondiscriminatory Access:
Bureau staff believes that, in determining whether a BOC provides
``nondiscriminatory access'' in accordance with the requirements of
section 224, the Commission should consider whether the BOC complies
with the regulations established by the Commission in the Local
Competition First Report and Order, implementing the nondiscriminatory
access provisions of section 224(f) for purposes of section 251(b)(4).
The reasonableness of particular conditions of access imposed by
a utility should be resolved on a case-specific basis. Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 1143.
The Commission also adopted five specific rules regarding the
circumstances under which utilities, including LEC's, may be
permitted to impose conditions on access to their poles, ducts,
and conduits, and rights-of-way. Local Competition First Report
and Order at para.para. 1151-58.
In evaluating a request for access, a utility should
continue to rely on widely-accepted codes, such as the
National Electric Safety Code (NESC), to prescribe
standards with respect to capacity, safety,
reliability, and general engineering principles. Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 1151.
Federal requirements, such as those imposed by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
should continue to apply to utilities to the extent
such requirements affect requests for access pursuant
to section 224(f). Local Competition First Report and
Order at para. 1152.
State and local requirements affecting pole
attachments are presumed to be reasonable, even if the
state has not sought to preempt federal regulations
under section 224(c). Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 1153.
Where access is mandated, the rates, terms, and
conditions of access should be uniformly applied to all
telecommunications carriers and cable operators that
have or seek access pursuant to section 2224(f). Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 1156.
A utility should not favor itself over other parties
with respect to the provision of telecommunications or
video programming services. Local Competition First
Report and Order at para. 1151.
The Commission also adopted certain guidelines, pursuant to section
224, to facilitate negotiation of pole attachment arrangements. Because
checklist item (iii) expressly cross-references section 224, Bureau
staff believes that the Commission should consider whether the BOC has
complied with these guidelines pertaining to reservation of space by
the telecommunications carrier, qualifications for workers installing
lines, procedures for modifying facilities, and procedures for denying
requests for access. Local Competition First Report and Order at
para.para. 1164, 1165-70, 1182, 1209, 1211, 1224.
Just and Reasonable Rates:
Bureau staff believes that, in order to satisfy the requirement in
checklist item (iii) that access be provided at ``just and reasonable''
rates, a BOC must comply with the statutory requirements of section 224
and the Commission's implementing regulations.
Currently, a BOC satisfies its duty to provide access to its poles,
ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way at ``just and reasonable'' rates if
the rate for such pole attachments complies with the rate methodology
set forth in section 224(d)(1) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 224(d).
After February 8, 2001, the rate for pole attachments used to
provide telecommunications service is ``just and reasonable'' if the
rate for such attachments complies with the Commission's regulations
implementing the requirements of section 224(e). 47 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 224(e); Pole Attachment Telecommunications Rate Order
para.para. 20-21, 125.
checklist item (iv): unbundled local loops
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide or offer to provide access to ``[l]ocal loop
transmission from the central office to the customer's premises,
unbundled from local switching or other services.''
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
252.''
Checklist Discussion
The local loop is an unbundled network element that must be
provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (iv).
Bureau staff believes that a BOC seeking to satisfy checklist item
(iv) must provide nondiscriminatory access to the various types of
unbundled loops identified by the Commission in the Local Competition
First Report and Order, e.g., 2-wire voice-grade analog loops, 4-wire
voice-grade analog loops, and 2-wire and 4-wire loops conditioned to
allow the competing carrier to attach requisite equipment to transmit
the digital signals needed to provide services such as ISDN, ADSL,
HDSL, and DS1-level signals. Local Competition First Report and Order
at para. 380.
The BOC must deliver the unbundled loop to the competing carrier
within a reasonable timeframe, with a minimum of service disruption,
and of the same quality as the loop that the BOC used to provide
service to its own customer. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b); 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.311(b); Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para.
312-316.
A BOC must provide access to any functionality of the loop
requested by a competing carrier unless it is not technically feasible
to condition the loop facility to support the particular functionality
requested. Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 382. For
example, if it is technically feasible to unbundle a loop to allow the
CLEC to provide greater bandwidth than that previously provided by the
BOC over that loop, the BOC must show that it provides such
functionality.
A BOC must provide cross-connect facilities, for example, between
an unbundled loop and a requesting carrier's collocated equipment.
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 386.
At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is
currently discussing how a BOC can meet the statutory nondiscrimination
requirement when a requested loop is integrated with other loops
through Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) technology or similar
remote concentration devices. IDLC allows a carrier to aggregate and
multiplex loop traffic at a remote concentration point and to deliver
that multiplexed traffic directly into the switch without first
demultiplexing the individual loops.
As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
loops in a timely and efficient manner. Bureau staff believes that a
BOC can demonstrate compliance with this checklist item by submitting
comparative performance data. Useful information includes how long it
takes to install a loop, how often the promised installation dates are
met, how well the competing carrier is informed of the status of its
order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing access to needed
support functions.
checklist item (v): unbundled local transport
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(v) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
to provide or offer to provide ``[l]ocal transport from the trunk side
of a wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from switching or
other services.''
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) requires a section 271 applicant to
provide [n]ondiscriminatory access to network elements in accordance
with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
252.''
Checklist Discussion
Transport is an unbundled network element that must be provided on
a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3). See 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (v). Transport can either be dedicated to a
particular carrier or shared by multiple carriers including the
incumbent LEC.
The BOC must provide transport to a competing carrier under terms
and conditions that are equal to the terms and conditions under which
the incumbent LEC provisions such elements to itself. Local Competition
First Report and Order at para. 315; see also 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b).
As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
local transport. Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate
compliance with this checklist item by submitting comparative
performance data. Useful information include data indicating how long
it takes to provision transport, how often the promised installation
dates are met, how well the competing carrier is informed of the status
of its order, and how responsive the BOC is in providing access to
needed support functions.
At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is
discussing whether the transport link between a BOC's switch and a
third party's switch must be shared, dedicated, or subject to a
transiting arrangement when a new entrant purchases shared transport.
Dedicated Transport:
To comply with the statutory requirement of section 251(c)(3), an
incumbent LEC must: provide unbundled access to dedicated transmission
facilities between LEC central offices or between such offices and
those of competing carriers, including at a minimum, interoffice
facilities between end offices and service wire centers (SWC's), SWC's
and interexchange carriers' (IXC's') points of presence (POP), tandem
switches and SWC's, end offices or tandems of the incumbent LEC, and
the wire centers of incumbent LEC's and requesting carriers. Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 440.
--provide all technically feasible transmission capabilities, such as
DS1, DS3, and Optical Carrier levels (e.g., OC-3/12/48/96) that
the competing provider could use to provide telecommunications
services. Local Competition First Report and Order at para.
440.
--not limit the facilities to which dedicated interoffice transport
facilities are connected, provided such interconnection is
technically feasible, or restrict the use of unbundled
transport facilities. Local Competition First Report and Order
at para. 440; see also 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.309.
--to the extent technically feasible, provide requesting carriers
with access to digital cross-connect system (DCS) functionality
in the same manner that incumbent LEC's offer such capabilities
to IXC's that purchase transport services. A DCS aggregates and
disaggregates high-speed traffic carried between competing LEC
switches and incumbent LEC switches, thereby facilitating the
use of cost-efficient, high-speed interoffice facilities. 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(d)(2)(iv); Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 444.
Shared Transport
To comply with the statutory requirement of section 251(c)(3), an
incumbent LEC must:
--provide shared transport in a way that enables the traffic of
requesting carriers to be carried on the same transport
facilities that an incumbent LEC uses for its own traffic.
Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order at para. 22.
--provide shared transmission facilities between end offices
switches, between end office and tandem switches, and between
tandem switches, in its network. Local Competition Third
Reconsideration Order at para. 25.
--permit requesting carriers that purchase unbundled shared transport
and unbundled switching to use the same routing table that is
resident in the incumbent LEC's switch. Local Competition Third
Reconsideration Order at para. 45.
--permit requesting carriers to use shared transport as an unbundled
element to carry originating access traffic from, and
terminating access traffic to, customers to whom the requesting
carrier is also providing local exchange service. Local
Competition Third Reconsideration Order at para.para. 38-39.
checklist item (vi): unbundled local switching
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vi) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide or offer to provide ``[l]ocal switching unbundled
from transport, local loop transmission, or other services.''
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to show that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to provide,
to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a
telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
252.''
Checklist Discussion
Local switching is an unbundled network element that must be
provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (iv).
This requires the BOC to show that it provides nondiscriminatory
access to:
--line-side and trunk-side facilities plus the features, functions,
and capabilities of the switch. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
--line-side facilities include the connection between a loop
termination at, for example, a main distribution frame, and
a switch line card. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(A);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
--trunk-side facilities include the connection between, for
example, trunk termination at a trunk-side cross-connect
panel and a trunk card. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(B);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 412.
--features, functions, and capabilities of the switch. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C); Local Competition First Report and
Order at para. 412. These include:
--basic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines to
trunks, trunks to lines, trunks to trunks, as well as the
same basic capabilities that are available to the BOC's
customers, such as a telephone number, directory listing,
dial tone, signaling, and access to 911, operator services,
and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 412.
--Lbasic switching function of connecting lines to lines, lines
to trunks, trunks to lines, trunks to trunks, as well as
the same basic capabilities that are available to the BOC's
customers, such as a telephone number, directory listing,
dial tone, signaling, and access to 911, operator services,
and directory assistance. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(1); Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 412.
--Lvertical features that the switch is capable of providing,
including custom calling, CLASS features, and Centrex. 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); Local Competition First
Report and Order at para. 412.
--Ltechnically feasible customized routing functions. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(i)(C)(2); Local Competition First Report
and Order at para. 412.
--trunk ports on a shared basis, and routing tables resident in the
BOC's switch, as necessary to provide nondiscriminatory access
to shared transport facilities. Local Competition Third
Reconsideration Order at para.para. 25-29; Ameritech Michigan
Section 271 Order at para.para. 327-328; and
--unbundled tandem switching, which includes the facilities
connecting trunk distribution frames to the tandem switch and
all functions of switch itself, including those that establish
temporary transmission path between two other switches. 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(2); Local Competition First Report and
Order at para.para. 425, 426.
Section 251(c)(3) permits competing carriers to purchase unbundled
network elements for the purpose of offering exchange access services.
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 356.
As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain unbundled
local switching in a timely and efficient manner. At the request of
participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff is discussing various
methods a BOC may employ to offer nondiscriminatory access to its
operations support systems with respect to switching.
Bureau staff believes that a BOC can demonstrate compliance with
this checklist item by submitting comparative performance data. Useful
information include how long it takes to provision switching, how often
the promised installation dates are met, how well the competing carrier
is informed of the status of its order, and how responsive the BOC is
in providing access to needed support functions.
The BOC must be able to transfer a customer's local service to a
competing carrier using unbundled local switching--where such a
transfer requires only a change in the BOC's software--within a time
period no greater than the interval within which the BOC transfers end
users between interexchange carriers. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(c)(1)(ii);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para. 421). Where, however,
provisioning of unbundled local switching will require the incumbent
LEC to make physical modifications to its network, the BOC must
demonstrate that it provisions this element under terms and conditions
that are no less favorable to the requesting carrier than the terms and
conditions under which the incumbent LEC provides such elements to
itself. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.313(b); Local Competition First Report and
Order at para.para. 315, 421.
checklist item (vii): 911/e911, directory assistance, and operator
services
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(vii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide or offer to provide: ``[n]ondiscriminatory access
to--(I) 911 and E911 services; (II) directory assistance services to
allow the other carrier's customers to obtain telephone numbers; and
(III) operator call completion services.''
Checklist Discussion for 911/E911 Services
To comply with the statutory nondiscrimination requirement, the BOC
must:
--provide competitors access to its 911 and E911 services in the same
manner that a BOC obtains such access, i.e., at parity.
Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para. 256.
--maintain the E911 database entries for competing LEC's with the
same accuracy and reliability that it maintains the database
entries for its own customers. This duty includes, among other
things, populating the E911 database with competitors' end user
data and perform error correction for competitors on a
nondiscriminatory basis. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order
at para. 256.
--A BOC can demonstrate that it is providing nondiscriminatory
access to 911/E911 services by submitting data
demonstrating that the 911 database is populated as
accurately, and that errors are detected and remedied as
quickly, for entries submitted by competing carriers as it
is for its own entries. Ameritech Michigan Order at para.
278. Useful information include the percentage of errors
found in competing LEC end user information and BOC end
user information, respectively, the percentage of accurate
updates, the timeliness of updates for the E911 database,
and the mean time to update the E911 database.
--provide facilities-based competitors with interconnection through
the use of dedicated trunks from the requesting carrier's
switching facilities to the applicable 911 control office, at
parity with what the BOC provides to itself. Ameritech Michigan
Section 271 Order at para. 256.
--provide facilities-based competitors unbundled access to its 911
database at parity with what the BOC provides to itself.
Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.para. 256, 270.
Checklist Discussion for OS/DA
Operator services and directory assistance (OS/DA) are network
elements that must be unbundled on a nondiscriminatory basis at any
technically feasible point. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(g); Local Competition
First Report and Order at para.para. 534; see 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (vii).
To comply with the statutory nondiscrimination requirement, the BOC
must:
--permit competing providers to have access to operator services and
directory assistance that is equal in quality to the access
that the BOC provides to itself. See Local Competition Second
Report and Order at para. 101.
--allow competing carriers to download all the information in the
BOC's directory assistance database and to access specific
listings on a ``per dip'' inquiry basis. Local Competition
Second Report and Order at para.para. 141, 143; Local
Competition First Report and Order at para. 538.
Where technically feasible, a BOC must make available unbranded or
rebranded OS/DA services to competing carriers through its OS/DA
platform. See Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para.
537, 971.
At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau staff
is discussing whether a BOC requirement that competitors
establish separate trunk groups to obtain unbranded/rebranded
OS/DA services from the BOC is consistent with the statutory
obligation to provide nondiscriminatory access to OS/DA.
An additional issue under discussion is whether the BOC must
provide unbranded or rebranded OS/DA through its own OS/DA
platform in those states where the state commission has
determined it is not ``technically feasible'' for a BOC to
provide unbranded/rebranded OS/DA to competing carriers using
the BOC's OS/DA platform.
As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), a BOC must
provide competing carriers the necessary OSS functions to obtain access
to OS/DA in a timely and efficient manner. Bureau staff believes that a
BOC can demonstrate compliance with this checklist item by submitting
comparative performance data. An example of such data would be a
measurement of the speed of answer provided by the BOC.
checklist item (viii): white pages listings
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(viii) states that access or interconnection
provided or generally offered by a BOC must include ``White [P]ages
directory listings for customers of the other carrier's telephone
exchange service.''
Checklist Discussion
Bureau staff believes that the term ``directory listing,'' as used
in checklist item (viii), should include, at a minimum, the
subscriber's name, address, telephone number, or any combination
thereof. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222(f)(3)(A). Bureau staff believes that
the term ``White Pages'' refers to the local alphabetical directory
that includes the residential and business listings of the customers of
the local exchange providers.
Bureau staff believes that checklist item (viii) requires the BOC
to include the names, addresses, and telephone numbers, or combinations
thereof, of the customers of a competing carrier in the local White
Pages directory.
To compete effectively in the local exchange market, new entrants
must be able to provide service to their customers at a level that is
comparable to the service provided by the BOC. Bureau staff believes
that checklist item (viii) requires the BOC to provide a White Pages
listing for the customers of a competing carrier in a nondiscriminatory
manner.
Bureau staff believes that, in determining whether a BOC satisfies
the requirements of checklist item (viii), the Commission should
consider the following:
--whether the listing the BOC provides to a competitor's customers is
identical to, and fully integrated with, the BOC's customers'
listings.
--whether the BOC provides a White Pages listing for a competitor's
customers with the same accuracy and reliability that it
provides to its own customers.
--whether the BOC has procedures in place that are intended to ensure
that the listings provided to a competing carrier are
comparable, in terms of accuracy and reliability, to the
listings provided to the BOC's customers.
checklist item (ix): numbering administration
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers for
assignment to competing carriers' telephone exchange service customers,
``[u]ntil the date by which telecommunications numbering administration
guidelines, plan, or rules are established.'' After that date, the BOC
is required to comply with such guidelines, plan, or rules.
Checklist Discussion
When ``consider[ing] each BOC's application to enter in-region
interLATA services pursuant to section 271(c)(2)(B) on a case by case
basis,'' the Commission ``will look specifically at the circumstances
and business practices governing CO [Central Office] code
administration in each applicant's state to determine whether the BOC
has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix).'' Local Competition Second
Report and Order at para. 345.
BOC functions as numbering administrator will be transferred over
the next 18 months to the neutral North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA), which will be governed both by industry
guidelines and by rules the Commission codified in its October 9, 1997
order naming the new NANPA, Lockheed Martin IMS. Once that transition
is complete, the guidelines, plan, and rules will have been established
(subject to further revision by the industry and/or the Commission),
and the BOC's will no longer serve as CO code administrators.
Bureau staff believes that the Commission, in determining whether a
BOC has complied with section 271(c)(2)(B)(ix), should consider whether
the BOC has provided nondiscriminatory access to numbers that the BOC
assigns in its role as CO administrator. Examples of the kind of
information that would be instructive include adherence to industry
guidelines, such as the Central Office Code Administration Guidelines
(Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment Guidelines (INC 95-0407-008)
(April 1997)) and the NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification
Guidelines (NPA Code Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines (INC
97-0404-016) (April 1997)), where applicable.
Checklist item (ix) is similar to the requirement in section
251(b)(3) that LEC's provide nondiscriminatory access to telephone
numbers to competing providers by permitting competing providers access
to telephone numbers that is identical to the access that the LEC
provides itself. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.217(c)(1); Local Competition Second
Report and Order at para. 106. Bureau staff believes that providing
nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers, for purposes of section
271(c)(2)(b)(ix), necessitates compliance with the rules implementing
section 251(b)(3). Specifically:
--incumbent LEC's providing telephone numbers may only charge other
telecommunications carriers fees for the assignment of CO codes
if they charge one uniform fee for all carriers, including
themselves and their affiliates. Local Competition Second
Report and Order at para.para. 328, 332-33;
--incumbent LEC's are not allowed to ``assess[] unjust,
discriminatory, or unreasonable charges for activating CO codes
on any carrier or group of carriers.'' Local Competition Second
Report and Order at para. 333;
--any attempt by an incumbent LEC ``to delay or deny CO code
assignments for competing providers of telephone exchange
service would violate section 251(b)(3), where applicable,
section 202(a), and the Commission's numbering administration
guidelines.'' Id. para. 334. Incumbent LEC's must ``apply
identical standards and procedures for processing all numbering
requests, regardless of the identity of the party making the
request.'' Local Competition Second Report and Order at para.
333.
checklist item (x): databases and associated signaling
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(x) of the Act requires a section 271 applicant
to provide or offer to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
databases and associated signaling necessary for call routing and
completion.''
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to demonstrate that it offers ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to
network elements in accordance with the requirements of sections
251(c)(3) and 252(d)(1).''
Section 251(c)(3) in turn establishes an incumbent LEC's ``duty to
provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision
of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network
elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on
rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the requirements of [section 251] * * * and section
252.''
Checklist Discussion
Databases and signaling are unbundled network elements that must be
provided on a nondiscriminatory basis pursuant to section 251(c)(3).
See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 271(c)(2)(B)(ii) and (x).
The BOC must demonstrate that it provides or offers to provide
competitors access to databases and associated signaling necessary for
call routing and completion in the same manner as it provides such
access to itself. Specifically, the BOC must demonstrate that it
provides or offers to provide nondiscriminatory access to the following
components:
--signaling networks, including signaling links and signaling
transfer points, which give the requesting carrier the ability
to send signals between its switches (including unbundled
switching elements), between its switches and the BOC's
switches, and between its switches and those third party
networks with which the BOC's signaling network is connected.
47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(1); Local Competition First Report and
Order at para.para. 479-483.
--call-related databases that are necessary for call routing and
completion, including the following: (1) line-information
databases (e.g., for calling cards); (2) toll-free databases
(i.e., 800, 888); (3) downstream number portability databases
(i.e., the BOC's own database containing number portability
routing information); (4) Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)
databases. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(2); Local Competition First
Report and Order at para.para. 484-492.
--Service Management Systems, which are used to create, modify, or
update information in call-related databases that are necessary
for call routing and completion. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.319(e)(3);
Local Competition First Report and Order at para.para. 493-500.
The BOC should provide a requesting telecommunications carrier with
access to call-related databases and service management systems in a
manner that complies with section 222 of the Act. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.319(e)(2)(vi) and (3)(v).
Useful information to determine compliance with this checklist item
includes:
--a comparison of the manner in which a BOC obtains access to its
databases and signaling network and the manner it which it
provides, or would provide, if requested, such access to
competing providers;
--an explanation of any differences in the manner in which a BOC
obtains access to a database or signaling system, and the
manner in which such access is provided to a competing
provider, the need for such differences, and the basis for the
Commission to find that such access satisfies the
nondiscrimination requirement;
As described in the discussion of checklist item (ii), competing
carriers must have nondiscriminatory access to the various functions of
the BOC's' operations support systems in order to obtain access to
databases and signaling in a timely and efficient manner.
checklist item (xi): number portability
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) of the Act states that ``[u]ntil the date
by which the Commission issues regulations pursuant to section 251 to
require number portability,'' a section 271 applicant must provide
``interim telecommunications number portability through remote call
forwarding, direct inward dialing trunks, or other comparable
arrangements, with as little impairment of functioning, quality,
reliability, and convenience as possible.''
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xi) further provides that, after the
Commission issues such number portability regulations, a section 271
applicant must be in ``full compliance with such regulations.''
Checklist Discussion
In determining whether a BOC has satisfied the number portability
requirement of the competitive checklist, the Commission must determine
whether the BOC provides number portability in accordance with section
251 and the Commission's number portability rules implementing section
251. Consistent with existing rules and orders, the Commission shall
consider the following:
With respect to interim number portability:
Whether the BOC is providing number portability
through remote call forwarding, direct inward dialing,
or other comparable and technically feasible interim
number portability methods as soon as reasonably
possible following a specific request from a competitor
in those areas where it has received a request from a
competitor and where the BOC is not yet obligated to
deploy long-term number portability. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 52.27; Telephone Number Portability First Report
and Order at para.para. 110-116.
Bureau staff believes that a BOC should be
required to furnish the specific method of
interim number portability that a competing
carrier requests, if such method is technically
feasible and not unduly burdensome. Bureau
staff further believes that in deciding whether
a particular method is unduly burdensome,
relevant factors are the extent of network
upgrades needed to provide that particular
method, the cost of such upgrades, the business
needs of the requesting carrier, and the
timetable for deployment of a long-term number
portability method in that particular
geographic location.
Whether the BOC's rates for interim number
portability comply with the Commission's criteria for
competitive neutrality. 47 C.F.R.Sec. 52.29.
With respect to long-term number portability:
Whether long-term number portability will be, or has
been, deployed in the state in accordance with the
implementation schedule established by the Commission.
47 C.F.R. Sec. 52.23; Telephone Number Portability
First Reconsideration Order at para.para. 48-126 and
App. B; Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
342. For those Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the
BOC's state that are part of the Commission's phased
implementation schedule, relevant information would
include:
--Lthe BOC's schedule for intra- and inter-company
testing of a long-term number portability method;
--the current status of the switch request process,
including identification of the particular switches for
which the BOC is obligated to deploy number portability
and the status of deployment in requested switches; and
--the schedule under which the BOC plans to provide
commercial roll-out of a long-term number portability
method in specified central offices in the relevant
state. Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
342.
Bureau staff believes that a timely filed request for
extension of the Commission's implementation schedule
tolls the obligation to comply with the Commission's
rules for purposes of checklist compliance. If,
however, the Commission denies such a request for an
extension of the implementation schedule, Bureau staff
believes such denial would be grounds for concluding
checklist item (xi) has not been met.
With respect to both long-term and interim number portability:
Whether the BOC is providing number portability in a
nondiscriminatory manner consistent with the definition
of number portability set forth in 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 153(30). 47 C.F.R Sec. 52.23; Telephone Number
Portability First Report and Order at para.para. 46-63,
110-116; Telephone Number Portability First
Reconsideration Order at para.para. 11-47.
As described in the discussion of checklist
item (ii), competing carriers must have
nondiscriminatory access to the various
functions of the BOC's' operations support
systems in order to request and obtain number
portability in a timely and efficient manner.
Ameritech Michigan Section 271 Order at para.
342.
Bureau staff believes that, to provide
nondiscriminatory access to loops, the
Commission should consider whether provision of
number portability is coordinated with loop
cutovers so that the competitive LEC's
customers do not experience prolonged service
disruptions between transfer of service from
the BOC to the competitive LEC.
checklist item (xii): local dialing parity
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xii) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to provide ``[n]ondiscriminatory access to such services or
information as are necessary to allow the requesting carrier to
implement local dialing parity in accordance with the requirements of
section 251(b)(3).''
Section 251(b)(3) imposes upon all LEC's the duty to provide
dialing parity to providers of telephone exchange service and telephone
toll service with ``nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers,
operator services, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no
unreasonable dialing delays.''
The Act defines ``dialing parity'' to mean that: a person that is
not an affiliate of a local exchange carrier is able to provide
telecommunications services in such a manner that customers have the
ability to route automatically, without the use of any access code,
their telecommunications to the telecommunications service provider of
the customer's designation from among 2 or more telecommunications
service providers (including such local exchange carrier). 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 153(15).
Checklist Discussion
The Eighth Circuit vacated the Commission's dialing parity rules,
``but only to the extent that they apply to intraLATA
telecommunications.'' See People of the State of Cal. v. FCC, 124 F.3d
934, 943 (8th Cir. 1997).
Consistent with the statutory definition of dialing parity and
section 251(b)(3), Bureau staff believes that a BOC, to comply with
checklist item (xii), must establish that customers of competing
carriers are able to dial the same number of digits that the BOC's
customer dials to complete a telephone call and that they do not
experience unreasonable dialing delays.
checklist item (xiii): reciprocal compensation
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Act requires that a section 271
applicant's access and interconnection include ``[r]eciprocal
compensation arrangements in accordance with the requirements of
section 252(d)(2).'' ``Reciprocal compensation arrangements'' refer to
agreements between interconnecting carriers about charges for the
transport and termination of local telecommunications traffic over
their respective networks.
Section 252(d)(2) states that ``[f]or purposes of compliance by an
[incumbnet ILEC] with section 251(b)(5)['s requirement that LEC's
`establish reciprocal compensation arrangements for the transport and
termination of telecommunications,'] a State commission shall not
consider the terms and conditions for reciprocal compensation to be
just and reasonable unless (i) such terms and conditions provide for
the mutual and reciprocal recovery by each carrier of costs associated
with the transport and termination on each carrier's network facilities
of calls that originate on the network facilities of the other carrier;
and (ii) such terms and conditions determine such costs on the basis of
a reasonable approximation of the additional costs of terminating such
calls.'' Section 252(d)(2)(B) further states that ``[t]his paragraph
shall not be construed (i) to preclude arrangements that afford the
mutual recovery of costs through the offsetting of reciprocal
obligations, including arrangements that waive mutual recovery (such as
bill-and-keep arrangements) or (ii) to authorize the Commission or any
State commission to engage in any rate regulation proceeding to
establish with particularity the additional costs of transporting or
terminating calls, or to require carriers to maintain records with
respect to the additional costs of such calls.''
Checklist Discussion
Bureau staff believes that in analyzing compliance with checklist
item (xiii), the Commission should consider whether reciprocal
compensation arrangements in accordance with section 252(d)(2) are in
place.
Bureau staff believes that if the BOC offers in its SGAT or
provides in its interconnection agreement reciprocal compensation
arrangements, it must demonstrate compliance with the SGAT or
interconnection agreement by making all required payments in a timely
fashion. At the request of participants in the 271 dialogue, Bureau
staff is discussing whether a BOC meets this checklist item when there
are disputes between the BOC and competing carriers over whether the
BOC is obligated to pay reciprocal compensation for certain types of
traffic, or over measurement of traffic eligible for reciprocal
compensation.
checklist item (xiv): resale
Background
Section 271(c)(2)(B)(xiv) of the Act requires a section 271
applicant to make ``telecommunications services * * * available for
resale in accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(4) and
252(d)(3).''
Section 251(c)(4)(A) requires incumbent LEC's ``to offer for resale
at wholesale rates any telecommunications service that the carrier
provides at retail to subscribers who are not telecommunications
carriers.''
Section 251(c)(4)(B) prohibits ``unreasonable or discriminatory
conditions or limitations'' on resale, with the exception that ``a
State may, consistent with FCC regulations under this section, prohibit
a reseller that obtains at wholesale rates a telecommunications service
that is available at retail only to a category of subscribers from
offering such service to a different category of subscribers.''
Section 252(d)(3) sets forth the basis for determining ``wholesale
rates'' as the ``retail rates charged to subscribers for the
telecommunications service requested, excluding the portion thereof
attributable to any marketing, billing, collection, and other costs
that will be avoided by the local exchange carrier.''
Checklist Discussion
The Commission has issued several non-pricing regulations relevant
to resale that were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. A BOC must
establish that it complies with these regulations to satisfy checklist
item (xiv). These regulations provide:
Resale restrictions, with limited specified exceptions, are
presumptively unreasonable. Local Competition First Report and
Order at para. 939.
The limited exceptions are: (1) a state commission may permit an
incumbent LEC to prohibit a competing carrier that purchases at
wholesale rates for resale, telecommunications services that
the incumbent LEC makes available only to residential customers
or to a limited class of residential customers, from offering
such services to classes of customers that are not eligible to
subscribe to such services from the incumbent LEC, see 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a)(1); and (2) short-term (90 days or less)
promotional prices do not constitute retail rates for the
underlying services, and, therefore, are not subject to the
wholesale obligation. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a)(1) and (2).
Offerings under section 251(c)(4) apply to volume-based
discounts; however, the avoidable costs for a service with
volume-based discounts may be different than without volume
contracts. Local Competition First Report and Order at para.
951.
With respect to volume discount offerings, it is presumptively
unreasonable for incumbent LEC's to require individual
customers of a reseller to comply with incumbent LEC high-
volume discount minimum usage requirements, so long as the
reseller, in aggregate, under the relevant tariff, meets the
minimal level of demand. Local Competition First Report and
Order at para. 953.
Other than the two exceptions from the resale requirement in 47
C.F.R. Sec. 51.613(a), an incumbent LEC may impose a resale
restriction only if it proves to the state commission that the
restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory. 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 51.613(b).
A BOC's refusal to offer Contract Service Arrangements (CSA's) at a
wholesale discount constitutes non-compliance with checklist item
(xiv), as it is not a ``reasonable and nondiscriminatory'' resale
restriction. BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 215.
There is no statutory basis for creating a general exemption from the
wholesale requirement for CSA's. BellSouth South Carolina Section 271
Order at para.para. 216-18. 47 C.F.R.Sec. 51.613(b) was intended only
to grant state commissions the authority to approve ``narrowly-
tailored'' resale restrictions that an incumbent LEC proves to a state
commission are reasonable and nondiscriminatory. BellSouth South
Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 218.
The Commission has not addressed whether cancellation penalties
when a new entrant seeks to resell a CSA contract are an unreasonable
condition or limitation on resale. It has recognized, however, that
these fees, depending upon their nature, may create additional costs
for a CSA customer that seeks service from a reseller, which could
insulate portions of the market from competition through resale.
BellSouth South Carolina Section 271 Order at para. 222.
A BOC may not refuse to offer for resale at a wholesale discount
CSA's that the BOC entered into after the effective date of a state
commission's arbitration order rendered its section 271 application
deficient. BellSouth Louisiana Section 271 Order at para. 63. The
Commission has not addressed the issue whether CSA's entered into
before the effective date of a state commission's arbitration order
should be offered for resale at a wholesale discount.
Bureau staff believes that the Commission should also require a
BOC to offer pre-arbitration CSA's for resale at the wholesale
discount rate, consistent with the position the Commission's
General Counsel has asserted in certain amicus curiae briefs
filed in federal district court.
In addition, a BOC must provide nondiscriminatory access to its OSS
functions to competing carriers that resell BOC services. (For a
discussion of OSS, see checklist item (ii).) Bureau staff believes that
a BOC can demonstrate that it is providing non-discriminatory access to
its OSS functions for resale by submitting performance data. Useful
information include whether there is nondiscriminatory access to OSS
for resale are information on the status of resale orders, the time it
takes to fulfill a service request for a resale order, and the number
of resale orders completed on time. Ongoing performance and monitoring
will assist in ensuring that the BOC continues to meet its statutory
obligations after receiving section 271 authorization.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR LEVITT, CHAIRMAN
Summary statement
Senator Gregg. We will reconvene the hearing on Commerce,
Justice, and State, and we are honored to have the Chairman of
the SEC with us. Senator Hollings, do you have an opening
statement?
Senator Hollings. No, sir. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Proceed.
Mr. Levitt. Chairman Gregg, and members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of testifying here
today in support of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
budget proposal for 1999.
We are grateful for the strong commitment the subcommittee
has always given to the Commission and its work. The
Commission's mission of protecting investors and promoting the
integrity of our markets has never been more crucial. Consider
the growth in our markets since 1980. Then, 1 out of every 17
American households was invested in our markets. Today it is
one household out of three.
With that growth in mind, the Commission is seeking
appropriations of $341.1 million for 1999. This figure
represents an increase of $26.1 million and 30 staff years over
last year's level.
I have always tried to run the Commission like a business.
We have exercised strong fiscal restraint for the past 4 years,
keeping our staffing essentially flat. We have fulfilled our
broad legal mandate to protect investors without overburdening
the taxpayers.
When I testified before this subcommittee last year, we
talked about the likelihood that the Commission might need to
seek a modest budget increase this year. I am here to ask for
your support as I make that request today.
Our capital markets are experiencing phenomenal growth in
just about every area. The number of investors in our markets
has grown to the highest level in history, largely through
record investment in mutual funds. The value of mutual fund
assets is now greater than the total value of deposits in all
of America's commercial banks. The value of securities
registrations is higher than ever before, and the volume of
initial public offerings is at a near record level.
The additional resources we are requesting today will help
the Commission keep up with these trends. They will help our
Enforcement Division to step up its campaign to prosecute
securities fraud--stopping abuses in the microcap sector;
cracking down on Internet fraud; pursuing complex litigation;
and investigating a record number of insider trading cases.
They will help our Division of Market Regulation assert
effective oversight over the exchanges, and over new
technologies for trading. They will help our Division of
Corporation Finance review companies' financial information,
IPO's, and merger and acquisition filings. And they will help
our Division of Investment Management and our Office of
Investor Education and Assistance keep Americans better
informed and protected--able to protect themselves as they
invest, many of them for the first time.
The year ahead presents the Commission with many market
challenges. Our major management challenge is retaining
experienced staff members to carry out our mission. The staff
turnover at the SEC has increased dramatically, especially
among attorneys, accountants, and securities compliance
examiners. With such competitive markets, Government salaries
simply cannot compete with private sector offerings. So we have
requested $7 million for retention allowances to help us keep
highly skilled employees who would otherwise leave the
Commission for private sector jobs. This is a pivotal step in
ensuring consistency and experience in staff who bring
important cases and oversee complex regulatory policies.
Our markets are the strongest and deepest and most liquid
in the world. They are fair to investors. They are efficient
for business, and they are vital to our Nation's economy.
prepared statement
I know that you share our commitment to ensuring that they
remain so, and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arthur Levitt
Chairman Gregg and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate this
opportunity to testify in support of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's (SEC or Commission) fiscal 1999 budget. During the past
year, we have seen phenomenal growth in our markets. The Dow reached an
all-time high, more investors are investing in our markets than ever,
and technological advances have made our markets more accessible to
more people.
In this time of record-breaking growth and technological
innovation, we also see an increase in innovative schemes to defraud
American investors. The Commission has been creative and diligent in
trying to protect investors and promote the integrity and efficiency of
our markets. It is abundantly clear that if we are to keep pace with
market changes, the Commission needs additional staff and funding.
Accordingly, the President's appropriation request for the SEC
includes $341.1 million and 2,827 staff years in fiscal 1999, an
increase of $26.1 million and 30 staff years from the Commission's
fiscal 1998 appropriation. If approved, this will be the first increase
in appropriated staffing and funding (except primarily for mandatory
expenses) that the agency will have had since 1995.
role of the sec
The SEC performs an essential function: overseeing one of the
largest sectors of our national economy--the U.S. capital markets. The
trillions of dollars invested in our markets fuel the U.S. economy.
Since its creation in 1934, the Commission has been charged with
protecting investors and maintaining fair and orderly markets.
Since 1991, our markets have enjoyed the longest and most vigorous
bull market in history. Accordingly, to put the SEC's requested
appropriation in perspective, it has to be viewed against the backdrop
of exponential growth and rapid changes in our markets.
current challenges facing the sec
Extraordinary Market Growth.--Many Americans now invest their
retirement savings in the securities markets, often through mutual
funds. Americans now have an unprecedented stake in our markets. Our
children's futures, our retirement money, and our future financial
well-being are increasingly dependent on the success of our markets.
More than ever before, Americans are investing in America. Consider the
following statistics.
--As recently as 1980, only one in 17 households invested in mutual
funds; today that number has risen to more than one in three.
--Assets in mutual funds have reached record levels of $4.5
trillion--a figure that greatly surpasses the more than $2.7
trillion Americans have on deposit at commercial banks--and
continue to grow monthly.
--The number of first-time small investors participating in the U.S.
securities markets continues to grow.
--A recent survey (conducted by a private concern) indicated that 24
percent of those responding were very much dependent on the
market for their retirement and 46 percent were somewhat
dependent.
The U.S. markets are widely regarded as the deepest, most liquid,
and fairest markets in the world. We have seen tremendous expansion in
our capital markets, and this exponential growth continues.
--Within the past two years, the Dow broke 6,000, then 7,000, and
then 8,000.
--Within the past six months, the New York Stock Exchange and the
Nasdaq Stock Market each have seen stock trading volume hit
record highs.
--In 1997, total dollar volume traded on the exchanges and the Nasdaq
Stock Market exceeded 1996 dollar volume by 41 percent.
--After three years of rapidly rising stock prices, American
households have more of their assets invested in the stock
market than at any time in history.
--In 1997, the number of investment company portfolios increased 8
percent from 24,265 in 1996 to 26,231.
--A record $1.44 trillion in securities were registered with the
Commission during 1997, a 20 percent increase over the $1.2
trillion registered in 1996.
--Over $100 billion in securities was registered in 1997 by foreign
companies, setting a record for foreign company offerings in a
single year.
Market participation is at an all-time high. The influx of less
sophisticated investors into our markets, however, has emboldened some
to prey upon the unwary. In addition, new securities products and new
technology have created new opportunities for fraud and abuse.
Combatting Fraud.--Commission staff investigate and prosecute
violations of the federal securities laws. These violations include
fraudulent offerings of securities, market manipulation, insider
trading, and violative conduct by regulated entities. The Commission
has been vigilant in pursuing its law enforcement responsibilities,
while trying to adapt its programs to changing market conditions.
Internet Fraud.--Much of the remarkable expansion and momentum of
the markets is a reflection of the current, ongoing technological
revolution. The Internet now allows securities to be marketed directly
to, and traded directly by, individuals around the world. We have seen
fraudulent offerings of securities, manipulations, and other violative
action conducted over the Internet.
These developments, in combination, present extraordinary
challenges to the SEC's law enforcement program. The Commission has
been active in addressing these challenges.
--The Commission stepped up its efforts to combat fraud committed
over the Internet, forming a ``cyberforce'' to monitor Internet
activity through surveillance.
--The Commission focused its efforts on investor education. The
Commission's website provides information to investors about
fraudulent schemes.
--The Commission is actively investigating fraud on the Internet and
brought approximately 20 enforcement actions to curb the use of
the Internet to perpetrate securities fraud.
Microcap Fraud.--The market shows signs of an increase in abuses in
the market for low-priced stocks or ``microcap'' stocks. Microcap
stocks are issued by companies with lower capitalizations and are
usually quoted on the National Association of Securities Dealers Over-
the-Counter Bulletin Board, the pink sheets operated by the National
Quotation Bureau, and the Nasdaq SmallCap Market. This part of the
market provides legitimate opportunities for small and new businesses
to raise capital, but also provides opportunity for criminals to prey
on innocent investors. Microcap fraud often is accomplished through the
use of sales practices such as abusive high-pressure cold calling,
unauthorized trading in a customer's account, and stock manipulation
schemes that enable the manipulator to reap profits while investors
suffer losses after the manipulation stops.
Addressing microcap stock fraud presents the difficult challenge of
controlling the fraud without damaging the market for securities issued
by legitimate small businesses. The Commission has begun a far-reaching
campaign against microcap fraud. The Commission's initiatives include
examinations and inspections, investor education, enforcement, and
regulatory oversight.
--Through Investor Alerts, the Commission's website, and town
meetings, the Commission educated investors about practical
tips on how to spot securities fraud.
--Our examination staff intensified its examinations of broker-
dealers and performed a ``sweep'' of brokers trading in
microcap securities.
--We increased our coordination of enforcement efforts with criminal
authorities, the states, and self-regulatory organizations.
--The Commission implemented a number of ten-day trading suspensions
in stocks for which there was suspicious activity.
--The Commission recently proposed amendments to strengthen its
disclosure and broker-dealer regulations to reduce
opportunities for microcap fraud.
Municipal Securities Markets.--The Commission continues to work to
eliminate pay-to-play practices, improve transparency, and improve
disclosures made to investors. We brought a number of significant
enforcement cases in the municipal securities area. In 1997, we brought
14 cases, as compared to 8 cases in 1996.
Inspections and Examinations.--The Commission's inspections and
examinations provide compliance oversight of self-regulatory
organizations, broker-dealers, transfer agents, and investment
companies and advisers. In recent years, a number of developments in
the securities industry have required significant staff attention and
resources. These include: development of highly sophisticated products,
increasing dependence on complex technology, a dramatic increase in
assets under management by investment advisers, and growing popularity
of microcap securities. Despite the demands placed on its resources,
the Commission has remained vigilant in overseeing regulated entities.
Recent initiatives include: a heightened emphasis on coordinating
examinations with other regulators; using sweep examinations to obtain
a more systematic view of industry problems and practices; and
developing risk-based examination techniques that allow the more
effective use of resources. Of course, our examination program
continues to emphasize fundamental investor protection issues such as
broker-dealer sales practices.
International Agreements.--We now live in a global marketplace. The
growing internationalization of the securities markets increasingly
affects U.S. markets. While this trend provides new opportunities for
investment and capital formation, it also creates new challenges for
securities regulators. The Commission negotiates information-sharing
agreements with foreign regulators to minimize the extent to which
borders are used to escape detection and prosecution of fraudulent
securities activities. During the past year, the Commission entered
into formal information sharing agreements with the Bank of England,
with Germany's securities regulator, and, just last week, with India's
securities regulator, among others.
Improving Disclosure and Educating Investors.--The Commission
recognizes that the increase in less sophisticated investors presents
new challenges for the Commission in carrying out its responsibility to
protect investors.
The Commission has tried to develop programs to promote more
informed investment decisions. The Commission implemented a number of
initiatives to improve disclosure and educate investors about investing
and their investments. For example, the SEC:
--began a series of national and community initiatives that will
culminate at the end of this month in an unprecedented national
public awareness campaign, ``The Facts on Saving and Investing
Campaign,'' and will include a town meeting broadcast
nationwide and to 21 countries participating in a hemispheric
conference;
--held town meetings in local communities to educate investors about
investing;
--required issuers to use plain English principles in drafting
prospectuses and developed a plain English writing guide for
issuers;
--adopted rules to improve the disclosure of information about mutual
funds to investors, including rules to improve fund
prospectuses and a rule permitting funds to use a summary
``profile'' document;
--issued staff guidance to the public and industry on disclosure
obligations arising from year 2000 conversion;
--transmitted its billionth page of text and data on the SEC's World
Wide Web site, which now has an average of 3 million ``hits''
per week and downloads an average of approximately 35 million
pages of financial information per week--making it, we believe,
consistently to be the most active federal website in
operation; and
--created a Task Force on Investment Adviser Regulation to implement
the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996
(NSMIA), to review and modernize Commission regulations, and to
develop a means by which investors can easily obtain
information about investment advisers.
Promoting Fair and Successful Markets.--During the past year, we
also have seen increasingly complex financial instruments in our
markets that have presented new and demanding challenges to the SEC.
The SEC seeks to be flexible in adapting its regulations to encourage
innovative products and services, consistent with investor protection.
The Commission has undertaken several initiatives designed to promote
improvements in market structures and operations and to encourage
innovation in capital-raising activities.
--The Commission issued a concept release that reexamines the
regulation of the U.S. securities markets in light of
technological developments, particularly with respect to
alternatives to traditional exchange trading and electronic
links to foreign markets.
--The Commission implemented the new order handling rules to assure
that markets are fair and open to investors and are based on
competition.
--The Commission published for comment rules for a class of
registered dealers active in OTC derivatives markets. The
proposal is designed to allow U.S. securities firms to
establish dealer affiliates--called OTC derivatives dealers--
that would be able to compete more effectively in global OTC
derivatives markets by tailoring capital and other regulatory
requirements for the OTC derivatives business.
--The Commission held a series of town meetings with small businesses
to educate them on capital raising strategies.
To date, we believe that the Commission has been successful in
carrying out its mandate, and investor confidence in our markets is
high. Investor confidence must remain high if our markets are to
continue to grow. Limited resources, however, may pose a threat to
investor protection and market integrity. In recent years, the
Commission has targeted its existing resources carefully to maintain
effective performance levels. The Commission's request for additional
funds is necessary for it to continue to fulfill its mandate to protect
investors and support its efforts to promote market integrity and
fairness.
priorities and allocation of additional resources
The SEC currently carries out its broad mandate with 2,797 staff
years. The agency is able to accomplish its objectives by regulating,
to a large extent, through a public-private partnership. This system of
shared regulation between the SEC, self-regulatory organizations, and
the industry is markedly different from the approach taken by other
federal regulators. It enables us to leverage our resources with the
efforts of the private sector. Even so, additional resources are
urgently needed.
Between 1980 and 1994, the number of SEC authorized positions
increased 35 percent. To put that in perspective, for the same period
assets under management of investment companies and investment advisers
increased 964 percent and 2,082 percent, respectively.
However, since 1995, authorized positions have been flat. We have
been able to maintain a vigorous program at the SEC with flat staffing
through fiscal restraint, conservative management, and the reallocation
of existing resources. Of course, the Commission is mindful of the need
to be fiscally responsible. However, if we fail to increase our
staffing levels to keep pace with market expansion, we may risk failing
to fulfill our mandated responsibilities. Expanding our human resources
will allow us to further existing priorities and pursue new
initiatives.
Law Enforcement
Combatting Fraud.--As discussed above, changing markets present new
challenges for the Commission. The recent resurgence of microcap fraud
and the use of the Internet to accomplish securities fraud are but two
examples of the challenges. Thus, the Commission intends to allocate 15
additional staff years for the Prevention and Suppression of Fraud
program. Staff in the program will monitor potential fraudulent
securities activity on the Internet and other on-line information
services and will respond to continued growth and change in electronic
forms of communication.
While existing resources were devoted in 1998 to combatting
microcap fraud, with the new staff, the SEC will be better able to
coordinate its nationwide effort to address microcap issues, including:
intervening in microcap frauds at the earliest point possible to
minimize investor harm; enhancing surveillance; and coordinating with
other federal, state, and industry regulators.
Inspections and Examinations.--Although Commission staffing levels
have remained constant since 1995, we reallocated resources to enhance
inspection and examination activities. As a result of those additional
examiners and new legislation that divided the regulatory
responsibility over investment advisers between the Commission and the
states, the SEC expects to meet its inspection goals in 1999. These
goals include inspecting each of the large investment advisers
qualified for federal registration and investment company complex at
least once every five years. In addition, throughout the inspection
program, the staff will continue development of risk-based examination
techniques and maximize opportunities to coordinate with other
regulators.
While no additional inspection staff is being requested for 1999,
additional funding is being requested to initiate a multi-year effort
to develop and implement important new automated tools, including
applications to track and monitor the examinations of self-regulatory
organizations, broker-dealers, and investment companies and advisers,
and applications to target examinations for broker-dealers and
investment advisers.
Disclosure and Promoting Honest and Efficient Markets
The review of financial statements and registrations filed with the
SEC is a fundamental element of the Commission's full disclosure
program, which is designed to provide investors with material
information, foster investor confidence, and facilitate capital
formation. Our goal is to encourage and enhance compliance with federal
securities disclosure and accounting requirements.
We intend to allocate six additional staff years to corporate
disclosure review. These additional staff members will enable the
agency to increase review of issuer reports 7 percent from 1998 levels.
This review will focus particular attention on compliance with plain
English requirements and will monitor how companies are addressing the
consequences of year 2000 conversion. The review levels achieved with
the additional staff will help provide investors with access to
important information on emerging and novel issues and provide
deterrents to fraud in public securities transactions. Simplification
of disclosure initiatives, including projects designed to assist small
businesses, also will remain a priority for 1999.
With respect to accounting policy, as more foreign registrants
access U.S. markets, two additional staff years are needed to keep pace
with major developments in international accounting and auditing. The
International Accounting Standards Committee is working to complete a
comprehensive core set of international accounting standards. After
this is completed, the staff will assess the standards and make a
recommendation to the Commission regarding the acceptability of those
standards for use by foreign registrants in cross-border offerings and
listings.
Additionally, eight additional staff years are requested in 1999
for the Supervision and Regulation of Securities Markets program to
continue the re-evaluation of our approach to regulating markets,
particularly the oversight of alternative trading systems, registered
exchanges, and foreign market activities in the United States.
Investment Company Disclosure
Eight additional staff years are requested for investment company
disclosure activity. The Commission recently adopted sweeping reforms
to investment company prospectus disclosure requirements. In 1999, the
staff will work with mutual funds as they revise their prospectus
disclosures to comply with the new form requirements; review the new
``profiles'' filed by mutual funds; and monitor compliance with the new
rules, increasing the number of investment company filings reviewed by
the staff. The review process enhances investor protection by seeking
to ensure that an entity's policies, procedures, and risks are
disclosed fully and fairly and that proposed activities are consistent
with the new rules.
The staff will continue to respond to the rapid changes in the
investment management industry, addressing issues such as investment
company advertising rules, periodic reporting requirements, financial
statements, and the electronic delivery of information to investors.
Improved Technology
The fast pace of technology and the pressure to deliver quickly
computer products and services has resulted in an increased reliance on
contractors with technical expertise. Outsourcing allows the Commission
to leverage private sector expertise and shift the technology staff's
focus from day-to-day operations to contract and project management and
oversight and strategic planning. In 1997, the Commission hired an
outside consultant to study how the operational efficiency of our
information technology services could be improved. The study
recommended the use of contractors for operations, maintenance, and
application development.
The shift in focus of the information technology staff from
operations to strategic planning will result in a decrease of 15 staff
years and also in the need for different skill sets with an emphasis on
project management, contract administration, technology engineering,
customer service, and network security skills.
Additional funding ($5.7 million) also is requested to support the
SEC's automation efforts to improve efficiency and productivity through
the use of automated PC-based computer applications. The funding will
enable the SEC to: complete the necessary conversion and testing for
year 2000; initiate the multi-year effort to develop and implement
important new tools for the inspections and examinations activity;
establish an infrastructure replacement program; improve data delivery
to the regions; further enhance document and correspondence management
systems; develop software to access on-line trading information;
implement user-friendly text search tools; and improve imaging,
storage, and retrieval capabilities. Additionally, the staff will
continue to work with various industry components to address year 2000
conversion and testing.
We appreciate the work and support of your staff on the
reprogramming of funds for the modernization of EDGAR--the SEC's
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. While EDGAR
is one of the government's most successful large information system
initiatives, the dramatic changes in technology over the past few years
necessitate its modernization. This modernization, to be done over a
three-year period, will greatly benefit issuers, investors, SEC staff,
and other data users.
Economic Analysis
Three additional staff years are requested to provide conceptual
and quantitative economic analysis focusing on issues such as investor
protection, trading practices, market structure, and costs and benefits
of rule changes.
Administrative Law Judges
Three additional staff years are requested to enable the
administrative law judges to file initial decisions within ten months
of issuance of the order for proceedings, as stipulated in the SEC's
``Guidelines for the Timely Completion of Proceedings.'' As a result,
the number of proceedings pending disposition will start to decrease
rather than continue on an upward trend.
additional funding for retention of staff
Our ability to retain our existing staff members is critically
important to our ability to get our job done. In fiscal 1997, turnover
at the SEC increased dramatically, especially in our three major
program occupations (attorneys, accountants, and securities compliance
examiners). For example, the SEC's overall turnover rate in fiscal 1997
was 11.9 percent compared to 9.5 percent in fiscal 1996. The 1997
turnover rate for attorneys was 16 percent compared to 11.3 percent in
1996. The 1997 turnover rate for accountants the rate was 12.1 percent
compared to 9 percent, and for examiners the rate was 10.8 percent
compared to 10.3 percent. By comparison, government-wide white collar
turnover has been in the range of 7-8 percent a year for the last
couple of fiscal years.
The SEC's ability to retain experienced professional staff is
critical to our ability to respond quickly to changing market events
and enforcement activities. The securities industry is constantly
seeking to hire lawyers, accountants, and securities compliance
examiners with highly-valued SEC experience. Market growth will
continue to increase demand for our seasoned securities professionals.
To combat this growing high attrition rate, we have requested $7
million for retention allowances. This retention initiative will
utilize more fully the existing authorities available to federal
agencies by expanding the use of retention allowances to retain, for
one or more additional years, critically needed employees who might
otherwise leave the Commission for higher-paying private sector jobs.
While realizing that the agency cannot compete directly with private
sector salary rates, we anticipate that this initiative will extend the
tenure of key professional employees. The Office of Personnel
Management and the Office of Management and Budget have reviewed the
proposal and support the strategy as a reasonable way to use limited
payroll dollars efficiently in order to try to retain key employees.
funding structure
The President has proposed in his 1999 budget total funding for the
SEC of $341.1 million, using several funding sources: $118.1 million in
new budget authority, $205 million in current year offsetting
collections, and $18 million in carryover from 1998 fees. The funding
mix reflects the Administration's government-wide fee initiative that
would, among other things, discontinue the practice of providing
agencies whose budgets are primarily financed by fees with an upfront
guarantee of budget authority which is later reduced as actual
collections are received.
The $84.6 million increase in budget authority over 1998 would
permit us to carry into fiscal 2000 fees that are collected late in
1999, allowing the SEC to be funded almost exclusively from fees. The
proposed budget is consistent with the declining fee rates established
in NSMIA. However, this approach continues the SEC's reliance on a
combination of excess fee collections from prior years and new
collections, thereby postponing the shift to a full appropriation.
conclusion
The Commission plays a vital role in protecting U.S. securities
markets from fraud, manipulation, and other practices that continually
threaten to undermine the integrity of our markets. In presenting
today's budget request, the Commission has been mindful that government
resources are limited. The Commission has requested a modest increase
of staffing and retention authority that will enable us to continue
targeting areas of market growth where our money can have the greatest
impact. It also reflects the market realities--the loss of trained
staff. Finally, our request recognizes that important work lies ahead
of us. Among the challenges we will face over the coming year are:
issues posed by the increasing number of small investors who invest
their retirement savings in mutual funds through retirement plans;
aggressively combatting fraud and maintaining public confidence in the
markets; and maintaining vigilant oversight of markets as those markets
grow increasingly complex and volatile.
As the year 2000 approaches, the U.S. must be ready to meet the
challenges presented by a changing marketplace in order to maintain the
leadership of its markets. To take on new challenges, to continue the
Commission's excellent record of effective investor protection, law
enforcement, and market oversight, and to continue to fulfill its
mission of protecting the millions of U.S. investors who have invested
nearly $13 trillion in the U.S. securities markets, the Commission
needs the increased resources requested today.
The Commission looks forward to working with the Subcommittee in
its continuing efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the SEC and the
viability of our markets.
Retention allowance
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say
how much we respect your agency and the work you do as
Chairman. The fact is that we are the premiere market in the
world, and we are there because of the SEC's discipline of that
market as a place that has high integrity and financial
statements.
The public can have confidence in statements put out by our
corporations, who are seeking public support through offerings,
as a result of SEC oversight. And so your agency is critical.
It does not take a lot of money compared to what we do around
here, but it is sort of the point that holds everything else up
from the standpoint of integrity of the markets.
This committee strongly supports your efforts, and from my
viewpoint, your request for this $7 million for retention
allowances is very reasonable, and something we will certainly
support.
I wonder if you need any legal authority to assist you in
this area. Are you all set as far as compensation legal
authority?
Mr. Levitt. I do not believe that we do need any special
legal authority. We have set up a program that provides the
maximum leverage for this, and maximum protections. We have set
up a committee of senior executive staff personnel to screen
each of the suggestions for any of this compensation.
I cannot say to you in candor that this program or any
program will guarantee that we will be able to stem the tide. I
know of six people who are working for around $100,000 a year
and who have offers of over $1 million in the private sector. I
hope that a retention allowance will be a gesture to show
people that we are able to fight for them and get them some
recognition. But is that a guarantee? No; it is not. But I
think we would be derelict if we did not try to keep them.
They are patriots, as far as I am concerned. That is the
only motivation for their being at the Commission. But there
comes a point when the spread is just too wide.
Senator Gregg. I understand that. We understand it as a
committee. We are willing to support you. We have other
agencies, probably not as dramatic as yours, that have this
same type of problem. But your agency is unique.
We all know that the people who work for you can go out and
make a lot more in many instances, and maintaining
professionalism in your agency is critical.
So we will support you in whatever way we can in that area.
Internet fraud
You mentioned that you are looking at the Internet fraud
issues. Maybe you could bring us up to speed as to what is
happening.
Mr. Levitt. Well, the Internet is a blessing and it is a
danger. It is a danger in that it is a vast new opportunity for
fraudsters to prey on the American public. And if either of you
surf through the web, you will see all kinds of offerings--
guaranteed 300 percent, buy an olive grove in Alaska and make
your fortune.
We brought a case not too long ago against a scamster who
raised millions of dollars from 1,000 investors for the
purchase of a nonexistent eel farm. No eels and no farm.
On the other hand, because it is so open, we are able to
see a lot of this stuff, and get at it, and we are bringing
cases. We are developing a technology that makes it easier for
us to interdict some of this stuff, as it happens.
We have a program of investor education, which I think is
an unusual one for Government, where we have town meetings all
over America. We have had 24 of them so far, to teach investors
how to protect themselves. We started in Camden, NJ, about 4
years ago, where we had about 30 people come out. In Los
Angeles 1 month ago we had nearly 6,000 people come out to ask
us questions about how to protect themselves. And we are going
to have a hemispheric town meeting, part of it in Spanish, in
about 2 weeks. So education is part of it.
Litigation is part of it. We bring cases against scamsters,
wherever it is appropriate, so they know they cannot get away
with fraud scot-free.
These are our efforts. I think you know that no Government
agency can protect people against their own bad judgment.
Senator Gregg. And it should not.
Mr. Levitt. It should not. But this is the general thrust
of what we are doing, and how we are approaching it.
Senator Gregg. Are you working with the FTC at all, which
also is into this issue rather aggressively. Do you have any
overlap there?
Mr. Levitt. We are working with the FTC on this issue.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. I join in Chairman Gregg's comments about
the outstanding nature in which you are performing. We are
lucky to have you.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you.
registration and transaction Fees
Senator Hollings. And I am glad to see Mr. McConnell,
because his father Guy McConnell, started with this
Appropriations Committee when I first got up here.
What happens now is a rhubarb relative to the fees. We are
doing well, not with you, but with the discipline down town
here. Because I well remember the fact that before the 1996
agreement there was an appeal by the Securities and Exchange
Commission that they had to do away and try to phase out this
6(b) registration fees, which we are doing.
But to supplant it, we got together with the Banking
Committee on the Senate side, and the Commerce Committee on the
House side, and the White House and worked out an arrangement
whereby we would have the transaction fee of Nasdaq, New York
Stock Exchange, and the American Stock Exchange that you
headed. So we put them into Nasdaq. And that is working well
now, is it not?
Mr. Levitt. Yes; the specifics of the agreement were that
we were going to reduce the 6(b) fees from one thirty-third of
1 percent in 1997 to their previous rate of one fiftieth of 1
percent in 2006, and to one one hundred fiftieth of 1 percent
in 2007. At that time the total amount of fees collected was
expected to equal what our requirement was. We also phased in
Nasdaq, to keep them on the same level as the exchange
transaction fees.
There is some question as to whether Nasdaq double counts
fees, which they do, and I think that the NASD may work out
some adjustment in that, which will reduce the fees. But that
is the process that is in place at this time.
closing remarks
Senator Hollings. Well, OMB is giving us a problem by
saying that the appropriations should come from discretionary
appropriations, and not fees, which would automatically make us
have to increase the SEC appropriations some $85 million.
But I just wanted to have those observations on the record
here, because I agree with Chairman Gregg also on the retaining
of personnel. We have that. Now the Government is underpaid. I
remember being up in New Hampshire with an executive of
Wheelabrator-Frye, Mr. Murray Dingman.
Senator Gregg. Mike Dingman.
Senator Hollings. Mike Dingman. He was appointed by the
Federal Government to try to reorganize it, and find out its
worthiness. And I will never forget him saying at the end of
the study that the top Government grade would be doubled and
tripled in private industry and that they were lucky to have
them in Government.
We have that with the FBI. If you want to try to get rid of
an FBI man, old Hoover used to say send them to Alaska. But you
have to send them to New York now. And many want to get out.
Because the wife, the family, the schools and everything else,
they are going to lose their family and everything else unless
they make a higher salary.
They are just not paid enough. They cannot find a place to
live. So the committee has a real problem there, and your
request is minimal, and you are paying for it. I support it and
support you in anyway we can. We are lucky to have you.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. I cannot think of what it was I was going to
ask. Well, in any event it must not have been important,
obviously.
We thank you for taking the time to come by. We appreciate
it. We will be funding your agency at your requested levels,
and we will try to help you out in anything else that comes
along that you need.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you.
conclusion of hearings
Senator Gregg. This subcommittee stands in recess until
March 31, 1998, when it will hear testimony from the Attorney
General on counterterrorism.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., Thursday, March 19, 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 1999
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
The following testimonies were received by the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
relate to the fiscal year 1999 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present our views in writing.
Bureau of Prisons Concerns
The AFGE Council of Prison Locals represents 26,000 federal prison
workers nationwide. Our main concerns are issues that have faced
Congress and correctional officers for the past three fiscal years.
The first concern is the continued emphasis on privatizing federal
prisons. An August 1996 GAO report found no conclusive evidence that
prison privatization leads to significant cost savings or improvements
in quality. The Bureau of Prisons is an agency that has operated
effectively for more than 60 years. The employees of the prison system
take pride in their work and operate correctional facilities in a safe,
humane, secure environment under the supervision of the Attorney
General.
In 1996 Congress took steps to privatize one federal prison in
Taft, California. This was supposed to be a five-year pilot project to
give Congress data on the potential savings from contracting out the
operation of additional federal prisons.
The problem is that BOP is skewing the data by allowing the
contractor at Taft--Wackenhut Corrections--to operate a Federal Prison
Industries program at the facility. This amounts to a subsidy to
Wackenhut because it relieves the contractor of paying for alternative
inmate activities.
The AFGE Council of Prison Locals believes that attempts such as
this to assist Wackenhut could result in misleading cost comparisons
that might be used as invalid justifications for further privatization
of BOP operations.
The need for a valid analysis of the true cost of contractor
operations is especially important in light of plans to privatize
operations of the District of Columbia correctional system (including
the Lorton Prison Complex) now under federal supervision.
Congress has annually funded the Bureau of Prisons at a higher rate
than requested by the President. That is because the federal prison
system and its loyal employees operate the prisons in a manner that is
professional and responsible. If this high level of performance is to
continue, we need targeted funds to help pay for overtime costs. Given
the staffing shortage at many facilities, overtime is the only way to
be sure that the proper level of supervision exists in our prisons.
Insufficient funds for overtime pay means that facilities often do not
have a sufficient number of correctional officers on duty to ensure
safety and security.
Our last point on BOP is the problem of excessive managerial
positions in the agency. Currently, there is a ratio of 1 supervisor to
5 line employees. This is a far cry from the 1:15 target in the
National Performance Review. This heavy layer of management increases
the BOP's cost per inmate. Elimination of this situation would make it
even clearer that BOP personnel can do the job more economically than
contractors.
Immigration and Naturalization Service Concerns
The AFGE National Border Patrol Council has a number of concerns
with regard to the Administration's authorization and budget request.
First, we believe the concept of contracting the enforcement of
immigration laws to state and local law enforcement agencies is ill-
advised, as employees of such agencies do not receive adequate training
in such laws, nor are they required to speak Spanish. This latter
factor alone could result in any number of situations in which persons
could be falsely arrested, medical emergencies of detainees could be
neglected, or officers could be injured.
The provision directing the Attorney General to subject INS
employees to the disciplinary policies applicable to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation cannot be applied to bargaining unit employees, as
they are already covered under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
As noted in a recent GAO report, there is no evidence that the INS
``prevention through deterrence'' border control strategy is working.
In fact, it appears that aliens are flooding across our borders in
record numbers. The growth of the Border Patrol has been more than
offset by the problems caused by the foolish tactic of stationing
agents in fixed positions instead of allowing them to patrol the
border. With fewer than 7,000 agents to monitor 6,000 miles of land
border on a 24-hour basis, it is obvious that this strategy is not
feasible. Since the Administration appears unwilling to voluntarily
abandon this senseless plan, Congress should direct INS to do so.
The $34.3 million proposed for construction, repair, and renovation
of Border Patrol facilities is inadequate, as many of the existing
facilities were designed to accommodate only a fraction of the
employees currently assigned to them. The language concerning the San
Clemente and Temecula traffic checkpoints should be deleted. The
continued operation of these vital facilities should not be held
hostage to unreasonable directives.
Although the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990
authorized agencies to offer a foreign language differential of up to 5
percent of basic pay to any law enforcement officer who possesses and
makes substantial use of one or more foreign languages in the
performance of official duties, INS refuses to do so. It should
therefore be compelled to include such payments in its budget. Such
payments should be directed to be included with regular salary payments
on a bi-weekly basis in order to ensure that the money is not diverted
to other programs.
INS continues to ignore the recommendation of the National
Performance Review to reduce by half the percentage of its employees
who are supervisors, and now INS wants even more supervisors. Congress
should reject this proposal and direct INS to comply with the NPR
recommendation.
Language needs to be included specifically earmarking funds for the
Border Patrol program. Otherwise, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service will once again take funding away from the Border Patrol for
other programs, frustrating the intent of Congress.
The AFGE National Border Control Council and the Council of Prison
Locals appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments.
______
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Delaney, Mayor-Commissioner,
Gainesville, FL
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 1999 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill
for the following innovative projects the City is undertaking: (1) a
Communications Enhancement Initiative to improve public safety; and (2)
a Business Incubator Project to promote economic development in East
Gainesville.
Communications Enhancement Initiative
The City of Gainesville is seeking $10,000,000 for a computer-
assisted dispatch and radio communications project to enhance public
safety. The City and Alachua County are planning the creation of a
joint communications system for the future. 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 need for this system is partially driven by the Federal
Government's ``re-farming'' of radio frequencies through the Federal
Communications Commission. The requirement to replace more than 20
different radio systems presents an opportunity to create a single
telecommunications infrastructure to serve all the emergency,
transportation, utility, support and administrative agencies in the
area.
The project consists of: Building and equipping a dispatch and
communications facility ($4 million); Providing a trunked
telecommunications system ($2 million); Purchasing and installing
advanced software to manage multiple agency operations and records ($2
million); and Purchasing the individual user devices for connecting to
the system ($2 million).
The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County
Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff
(includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of
Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs,
Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School
Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of
Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville
Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas,
water, wastewater, telecommunications).
Currently, the City of Gainesville operates its own emergency
dispatch facilities for police and fire rescue. Alachua County provides
similar service for urban and rural areas, along with smaller cities,
in a site operated by the Alachua County Sheriff. Current technologies
in the two centers are incompatible. In addition, numerous other
agencies of both governments are operating separate small dispatch
operations on other radio systems. The total number of governmental
users of radio systems, including utility workers, is over 1,500. The
emergency control centers record, control, and track events with
computer-aided dispatching systems (CAD) which are incompatible with
each other and which are becoming obsolete.
There is an opportunity to consolidate all of these communications
functions into one telecommunications infrastructure, which will
provide cheaper operating costs, better services, with significant
improvement to emergency and non-emergency governmental and utility
services. The area is over 900 square miles with a population of more
than 200,000. Providing advanced technologies (voice, data, telephone
interconnect, resource management, records, billing, etc.) requires
extraordinary coordination with the numbers of agencies involved.
Funding such an effort is beyond the current capability of the
entities, either individually or together. Yet, under the standards for
radio frequency allocation by the Federal government, this
reorganization into a combined system provides the most rational
response to the changing telecommunications environment.
The expected result of this project will be the ability for all
agencies to communicate internally and across all agencies when the
need arises to coordinate joint operations. The addition of a digital
data system allows for field entry and research of records along with
text communication. This use of wireless networking will permit person-
to-person as well as computer-to-computer communication, thus providing
access to all forms of information at mobile and fixed sites on the
network. Geographic Information Systems, Dispatching Systems, Work-
Order Systems and Work-Management Systems will all be linked to a
common communications backbone. There are 5 law enforcement agencies,
11 fire rescue services, an ambulance service, 3 hospitals, 31 schools
and colleges, a transit system, 9 municipalities and multiple county
government agencies which will join the system as ``subscribers''--
paying annual usage fees based upon the number of devices they have on
the system.
The infrastructure is proposed to be operated by the municipal
utility as a part of a communications subsidiary. Fees to the system
will cover the cost of operation and maintenance along with future
upgrades. The system will also be linked to an existing and expanding
fiber-optic network which links many government and health care
institutions.
The Federal government's reallocation of radio spectrum is the
triggering event causing the need for a new telecommunications system.
The advantages of combining all of the systems into a single
infrastructure are beneficial to law enforcement, fire rescue, public
works, and the entire spectrum of other municipal and rural services.
Funding the program will reduce future operating costs, but the high
initial cost is the obstacle to its inception. Most of the technology
is existing and well-proven in other applications, although it is not
yet in use in such a widespread and cross-dimensional form. The
challenge in this application is the ability to use a single
architecture to provide a non-duplicative information infrastructure
which significantly reduces future costs. The financial need is the
same that all governments face when presented a new technology--that
the existing systems consume the resources needed to migrate to the
more efficient systems. The FCC mandates regarding frequency
reallocation will result in high investment costs in new
telecommunications infrastructure, but local governments will be hard-
pressed to meet the mandate without additional assistance.
This project, because it provides the linkage between all entities
in the region to meet the future information infrastructure needs, is
appropriate for one-time Federal funding. It is an opportunity to
demonstrate the feasibility of a joint, multi-agency, multi-
jurisdiction, and multiple technology telecommunications system.
Business Incubator Project
Finally, the City of Gainesville is seeking federal funds for a
business incubator project to promote economic development in East
Gainesville. Key components of the Gainesville Enterprise Assistance
Center are:
--Real Estate Acquisition: The City of Gainesville expects to receive
the donation of a 75,000 square foot office warehouse facility
with a market value of about $1.2 million.
--The City requires $1,000,000 to renovate the facility as a business
incubator.
The City of Gainesville's Economic Development Department is
working in collaboration with the University of Florida, the North
Florida Technology Innovation Corporation, Santa Fe Community College,
the Small Business Development Center, the Gainesville Area Chamber of
Commerce, the Council for Economic Outreach, the Southern Technology
Application Center and other local organizations on this project.
Together, these organizations possess the staff and expertise to
provide services and administer, implement and market the project. If
the property and funding are obtained, project implementation will
begin on or before October 1, 1998. Gainesville needs to create greater
opportunities to support small business startups that can fuel job
creation and expand the tax base in our local area.
--It has been documented that the majority of new jobs in America are
generated by small companies.
--A survey has been done of local start up companies which indicates
that 60 percent of the respondents would have used and
benefited from a business incubator had one been available.
--Gainesville is a community rich in intellectual capital due to the
diversity of colleges and programs at the University of
Florida. Research at UF has resulted in an abundance of
technology that can be licensed by private entrepreneurs. In
addition, new business startups unrelated to the university are
emerging continuously in the north central Florida region.
--Much of UF's available technology leaves the community and is
developed in cities where programs exist to help new business
owners succeed. Many of the non-UF business ventures that start
in the area fail due to a lack of business assistance.
There will be direct and indirect economic development impacts from
this project.
--The incubator will be located in the City of Gainesville Enterprise
Zone. The area's residents live in some of the census tracts
with the City's highest unemployment and poverty rates.
According to the 1990 Census, census tract four where the
project is located has a 20.4 percent poverty rate and a 10
percent unemployment rate. Surrounding tracts (five, six and
seven) range from 36.6 percent to 46.82 percent poverty rate
and 4.1 percent to 15.8 percent unemployment rate. The building
targeted for use as the incubator is a former hardware and
lumber store which once employed 100 workers but closed two
years ago and is still vacant.
--One of the main goals of the City is the creation of jobs for the
unemployed and the welfare recipients that will be forced off
welfare as part of the President's welfare reform initiative.
--The proposed incubator will function to help grow companies that
can create needed jobs in the enterprise zone, add to the
city's tax revenue stream, and help diversify the employment
base. The incubator will provide valuable business development
services to client companies so as to maximize their chance for
survival. In addition, the City, in collaboration with other
organizations, will seek to identify entrepreneurs and small
business start-ups within the target area to create more
business and employment opportunities for residents.
--A recent study published in August 1997 entitled ``Business
Incubation Works'', funded by a grant from the U.S. Economic
Development Administration, gave the following findings on the
impacts of business incubators: (1) In 1996 incubator firms
created 468 direct and 702 total jobs, (2) Estimated public
subsidy: $1,109 per job, (3) 97 percent of graduating firms are
still in business, (4) 84 percent of graduating firms stay in
their community, (5) Incubation programs contribute to their
client companies' success, and (6) EDA funded incubators
performed better than or equal to non EDA funded incubators.
In closing, federal support is critical for the success of both of
these initiatives. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
requests every consideration throughout the fiscal year 1999
appropriations process.
______
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce L. Delaney, Mayor-Commissioner,
Gainesville, FL
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 1999 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill
for the following innovative projects the City is undertaking: (1) a
Communications Enhancement Initiative to improve public safety; and (2)
a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
Initiative and Regional Juvenile Assessment Center to assist our
efforts in providing an all-encompassing community-based approach to
juvenile crime and prevention.
Communications Enhancement Initiative
The City of Gainesville is seeking $10,000,000 for a computer-
assisted dispatch and radio communications project to enhance public
safety. The City and Alachua County are planning the creation of a
joint communications system for the future. 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 need for this system is partially driven by the Federal
Government's ``re-farming'' of radio frequencies through the Federal
Communications Commission. The requirement to replace more than 20
different radio systems presents an opportunity to create a single
telecommunications infrastructure to serve all the emergency,
transportation, utility, support and administrative agencies in the
area.
The project consists of: Building and equipping a dispatch and
communications facility ($4 million); Providing a trunked
telecommunications system ($2 million); Purchasing and installing
advanced software to manage multiple agency operations and records ($2
million); and Purchasing the individual user devices for connecting to
the system ($2 million).
The agencies involved in this project are: Alachua County
Government (14 internal user agencies), Alachua County Sheriff
(includes Corrections Facility and Civil Division); Cities of
Gainesville (8 internal user agencies), Archer, Newberry, High Springs,
Alachua, LaCrosse, Waldo, Melrose, Hawthorne, and Micanopy; School
Board of Alachua County, Santa Fe Community College, University of
Florida, Gainesville-Alachua County Airport Authority, Gainesville
Regional Transit and Gainesville Regional Utilities (electric, gas,
water, wastewater, telecommunications).
Currently, the City of Gainesville operates its own emergency
dispatch facilities for police and fire rescue. Alachua County provides
similar service for urban and rural areas, along with smaller cities,
in a site operated by the Alachua County Sheriff. Current technologies
in the two centers are incompatible. In addition, numerous other
agencies of both governments are operating separate small dispatch
operations on other radio systems. The total number of governmental
users of radio systems, including utility workers, is over 1,500. The
emergency control centers record, control, and track events with
computer-aided dispatching systems (CAD) which are incompatible with
each other and which are becoming obsolete.
There is an opportunity to consolidate all of these communications
functions into one telecommunications infrastructure, which will
provide cheaper operating costs, better services, with significant
improvement to emergency and non-emergency governmental and utility
services. The area is over 900 square miles with a population of more
than 200,000. Providing advanced technologies (voice, data, telephone
interconnect, resource management, records, billing, etc.) requires
extraordinary coordination with the numbers of agencies involved.
Funding such an effort is beyond the current capability of the
entities, either individually or together. Yet, under the standards for
radio frequency allocation by the Federal government, this
reorganization into a combined system provides the most rational
response to the changing telecommunications environment.
The expected result of this project will be the ability for all
agencies to communicate internally and across all agencies when the
need arises to coordinate joint operations. The addition of a digital
data system allows for field entry and research of records along with
text communication. This use of wireless networking will permit person-
to-person as well as computer-to-computer communication, thus providing
access to all forms of information at mobile and fixed sites on the
network. Geographic Information Systems, Dispatching Systems, Work-
Order Systems and Work-Management Systems will all be linked to a
common communications backbone. There are 5 law enforcement agencies,
11 fire rescue services, an ambulance service, 3 hospitals, 31 schools
and colleges, a transit system, 9 municipalities and multiple county
government agencies which will join the system as ``subscribers''--
paying annual usage fees based upon the number of devices they have on
the system.
The infrastructure is proposed to be operated by the municipal
utility as a part of a communications subsidiary. Fees to the system
will cover the cost of operation and maintenance along with future
upgrades. The system will also be linked to an existing and expanding
fiber-optic network which links many government and health care
institutions.
The Federal government's reallocation of radio spectrum is the
triggering event causing the need for a new telecommunications system.
The advantages of combining all of the systems into a single
infrastructure are beneficial to law enforcement, fire rescue, public
works, and the entire spectrum of other municipal and rural services.
Funding the program will reduce future operating costs, but the high
initial cost is the obstacle to its inception. Most of the technology
is existing and well-proven in other applications, although it is not
yet in use in such a widespread and cross-dimensional form. The
challenge in this application is the ability to use a single
architecture to provide a non-duplicative information infrastructure
which significantly reduces future costs. The financial need is the
same that all governments face when presented a new technology--that
the existing systems consume the resources needed to migrate to the
more efficient systems. The FCC mandates regarding frequency
reallocation will result in high investment costs in new
telecommunications infrastructure, but local governments will be hard-
pressed to meet the mandate without additional assistance.
This project, because it provides the linkage between all entities
in the region to meet the future information infrastructure needs, is
appropriate for one-time Federal funding. It is an opportunity to
demonstrate the feasibility of a joint, multi-agency, multi-
jurisdiction, and multiple technology telecommunications system.
Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention Initiative
and Regional Juvenile Assessment Center
The City of Gainesville is also seeking federal funds to assist our
efforts in providing an all-encompassing community-based approach to
juvenile crime and juvenile crime prevention via our Comprehensive
Regional Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention Initiative and
Regional Juvenile Assessment Center Project. In particular, we are
hopeful that the Subcommittee will provide the City with $1.5 million
as a direct federal appropriation for this project. The Initiative has
two main components, which are interrelated:
A demonstration model Regional Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC).--
The Regional JAC is planned to serve an eleven-county area of north
central Florida. The JAC will be the keystone of this project, and will
be co-located on a single campus with other agencies serving juveniles
to provide a coordinated Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
Continuum of Services.
A demonstration model Continuum of Outreach Facilities.--In
addition, the Initiative has a critical need for funding a Continuum of
Outreach Facilities, located throughout the community and surrounding
area, so that all the community's at-risk youth can be provided with
coordinated and appropriate intervention and prevention services in or
close to their own neighborhoods. The focus of the Continuum is to
enable the community to assist in the development of youth prepared to
meet the challenges of being contributing citizens of the 21st Century.
This Continuum will emphasize the community's role in the raising of
its own juveniles, and will foster volunteerism and involvement of the
parents and interested adults. We will encourage the youth to excel in
school so as to have the educational background to be gainfully and
productively employed. The Continuum's components will encourage the
child to remain active in positive activities, given the well-
documented connection between a lack of structured activities and
crime. Through programming, youth will be encouraged to develop
positive problem solving life skills which are intended to strengthen
youth to resist engaging in violent criminal activities, as well as
illegal activities in general. In preparing for the 21st Century, these
youth need to be assisted in identifying career opportunities, and then
guided and placed on the path leading to success in their career
objectives. These programs in turn will strengthen the effectiveness of
the intervention/prevention services delivered to the juveniles, and
will facilitate the often missing aftercare component.
The Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention/Intervention
Initiative recognizes that a well designed and implemented Continuum of
Services is required to focus on the broad range of services required
to assure that all juveniles receive the intervention and prevention
services they require to become productive and contributing adult
citizens. We further recognize that a partnership is required. The
School Board of Alachua County, law enforcement, the business
community, local governments, the judiciary, other agencies providing
intervention and prevention services to juveniles, parents and
guardians, as well as the juveniles themselves are partners in the
juvenile cycle. All must be involved in the coordinated efforts
required to effectively address solutions.
With this in mind, the City of Gainesville and its partners seek
support for developing and implementing a strong well coordinated
partnership-based Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative focusing
on all aspects of the juvenile continuum. The City of Gainesville
recognizes the need for enhanced communications and coordination among
the partnership of juvenile providers while at the same time we
recognize the need for developing and implementing a comprehensive
strategy to attack this problem. Though this Initiative is in its
infancy, we already have some outstandingly successful innovative
programs which meet some of the needs of some of our juveniles. We
traditionally have used our local resources in creative and innovative
ways in order to provide the piecemeal service delivery we have at
present.
We are convinced that our community has what it takes to create and
sustain this Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
Initiative. The City of Gainesville is playing a leadership role in a
number of interrelated initiatives within the juvenile justice/
delinquency prevention area. To be effective, we must augment our local
resources.
The City of Gainesville and other business partners stand firmly
behind the goals and objectives of the Juvenile Continuum. As an
example, the Gainesville Police Department has just donated $100,000 to
a scholarship fund for minority and disadvantaged youth, with the
purpose of enabling them to have a chance at obtaining a degree in
college or in obtaining a technical degree (trade) to assist them in
obtaining meaningful and fulfilling employment.
It is our philosophy that scarce funds are much more effectively
spent at the front end of the juvenile justice continuum, in comparison
to the much larger price incurred when a society must deal with
juvenile (and adult) criminals. We already have several local projects
that have demonstrated marked success in delivering juvenile
intervention/prevention programs. Each of these success stories is the
result of the underlying strong partnerships which characterize the way
our community historically has sought solutions to its problems. Some
of our more creative and successful local initiatives include:
--The Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) now has the ability to
immediately deal with counseling and referral issues, rather
than waiting three to four weeks as has occurred in prior
cases. There is an ongoing dialogue between DJJ and the
Gainesville Police Department as to the disposition of juvenile
cases and referrals. Communication is knowledge, and this
information has allowed both entities to provide better service
to the community and its juveniles.
--The OUTLET Teen Program is a unique community-wide partnership,
addressing the crime prevention needs of the community's teens
who are not yet in trouble, but who are at risk because the
community lacks wholesome leisure-time alternatives for them.
The OUTLET Teen program focuses on a three prong concept of (1)
teen leadership, (2) teen volunteerism, and (3) teen social
activities as an effective crime prevention tool. This highly
successful program has resulted in an OUTLET Teen Council in
all 7 of the high schools in Alachua County and is now moving
into the middle schools. With participation growing, OUTLET has
had a major effect on deterring juvenile crime and funneling
the energy of Alachua County's teens towards productive
endeavors. Currently, there is no program nationally that
focuses on all three aspects of leadership development,
community service, and wholesome entertainment for all teens.
Even those cities that have instituted only one prong of the
three prong concept have recognized a substantial reduction in
teen crime. There is a well documented connection between teen
crime and a lack of structured activities for teens. In our
community, since OUTLET was formed, there has not been a
congregation of teens in the business district; teens have
volunteered to paint houses for the elderly and for those in
poverty areas; teens have assisted the Gainesville Police
Department in the annual bicycle give away to underprivileged
children; teens have walked in the annual March of Dimes
benefit; and teens have planned, implemented, and attended
drug/alcohol free social activities.
--The Reichert House is another example of recognizing specific
needs/gaps in the Continuum underlying the Juvenile Justice
Crime Prevention Initiative. Aimed specifically at young
African-American males, the program provides services these
young men would not normally have. By providing this service,
the affected juveniles can channel their activity into
productive areas. We have plans underway to replicate this
program for young African-American females.
The concept of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative is
a simple one. The School Board, the Police Department and other law
enforcement agencies, the Juvenile Detention Center, Courts, parents/
guardians, States Attorney, the juveniles themselves, as well as many
others are partners in the juvenile cycle. However, each entity has
specific goals and objectives and often operates independently of the
others. The concept, though simple, is to have each entity work in
conjunction with the others to devise an overall strategy to combat
juvenile crime while providing efficient services. The main components
of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative and Juvenile
Assessment Center are:
--The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative will be headed and
administered by an Advisory Board, consisting of representation
from all agencies providing services to juveniles. This
Advisory Board will meet regularly to oversee and coordinate
the development and delivery of a seamless continuum of
Juvenile Justice services.
--As communication and coordination are critical elements, we will
need a centralized information sharing and resource
clearinghouse which all could tap into on behalf of any
juvenile. Information sharing and coordination would need to be
designed to meet the confidentiality requirements of the
juveniles, so the focus would be on the sharing and efficient
use of all resources available to the juvenile. The
communication and information sharing network could serve as a
resource and reference source for the juveniles, the
participating agencies, and the community as a whole.
--The Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC) will be a centralized facility
for providing delinquent juveniles with a comprehensive needs
assessment followed by a coordinated delivery of appropriate
services. All participating agencies would have a presence at
the facility. The JAC would track how these needs are met, and
how the juvenile is progressing.
--We as a community of juvenile service providers must identify all
resources now available to us along with the needs of all our
juveniles. We need to use our best and most knowledgeable
professionals to strategize on what it takes to turn around an
at-risk youth (and there are many types of at-risk youths)
while at the same time not losing sight of the needs of our
youths who are not yet in trouble, but who need wholesome
alternatives. We also need to critically examine all resources
we now have or can obtain so that increasingly scarce resources
are combined and utilized in the most efficient and cost-
effective manner. This requires the partner agencies to look
beyond their own individual missions and to focus on the
mission of the community as a whole and its desire for all
youth to have every opportunity to become productive and
contributing members of society.
--The process of resource identification and juvenile needs
assessment will enable us as a community of providers to
identify the gaps or overlaps in our juvenile service delivery
system, and to work together in supporting our partner agencies
as they carry out their own unique missions. From our
experience, it is very enlightening for agencies to sit
together and identify to one another what it is that they do,
and to gain a greater understanding of what others do. Such
efforts inevitably lead to the discovery of overlapping/missing
pieces of the puzzle. An even greater benefit which we have
observed is the lowering of the barriers between agencies, and
an increased degree of collaboration and communication which
spreads beyond the immediate arena.
--We then as a community will identify and prioritize the gaps to be
filled, and will together develop and implement a strategy to
fill such gaps. Each agency will contribute and share its own
contacts and expertise to assist the others for the common
good. Since this is a learning process that is dynamic in
nature, it is essential that the Advisory Board be supported,
and be dynamic and active in carrying out and coordinating the
activities of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative.
We will need to support and strengthen one another's efforts to
tap all available resources. We will need to form task-specific
partnerships in order to carry out initiatives beyond the
capacity of an individual partner.
This is a critical and much needed initiative for which the City of
Gainesville and its Police Department seek your support. If funding is
provided, we will be able to augment our local resources to develop and
implement the centralized and coordinated delivery of a seamless
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Initiative for the youth of our
community. What we are already doing and doing well here, although in
piecemeal fashion, in our community can be formalized in our community
and coordinated through the creation of a seamless Juvenile Justice
Initiative. This then can serve as a highly efficient model which could
be replicated in other communities nationally.
In closing, federal support is critical for the success of each of
these initiatives. It is our hope that the Subcommittee will give our
requests every consideration throughout the fiscal year 1999
appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of Kenneth E. Bischoff, Chairman, National
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics
SEARCH is a nonprofit criminal justice organization dedicated to
assisting state and local criminal justice agencies combat crime and
administer justice through the effective and responsible use of
information and identification technologies. SEARCH is governed by a
Membership Group comprised of one gubernatorial appointee from each of
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
We submit this testimony seeking appropriation support for SEARCH's
National Technical Assistance and Training Program in the fiscal year
1999 Byrne discretionary program appropriation for the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA). The National Technical Assistance and
Training Program has received an appropriations earmark in each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998, in the amount of $1 million.
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program is
unique--it provides no-cost assistance to all components of the state
and local criminal justice system with respect to the development,
operation, improvement and/or integration of all types of criminal
justice information systems. The National Technical Assistance and
Training Program not only helps state and local agencies work more
efficiently and effectively through the use of advanced information
technology, but it creates the foundation for a national information
infrastructure for justice systems.
SEARCH is experiencing rapidly increasing demand for the program.
There are a number of reasons, including the success of grant programs
such as COPS More, the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant, which have provided seed money for justice information
systems automation and integration. In addition, the nation's criminal
justice agencies' critical need to quickly share complete and accurate
information, and, therefore, their efforts to integrate and connect
justice information systems has also impacted the demand for SEARCH
technical assistance and training services. We anticipate this growth
to not only continue, but to accelerate. Indeed, the need is so acute,
that in the past year, BJA augmented the SEARCH earmark with an
additional $1 million to expand its existing training and technical
assistance activities with those that specifically emphasize court
automation and the integration of court information systems with the
other disciplines within the criminal justice system.
We want to commend BJA and its fine, professional staff. Working in
partnership with SEARCH, BJA has provided strong, national leadership
to create opportunities for information systems training and technical
assistance for state and local criminal justice officials.
Because SEARCH's Technical Assistance and Training Program is
national, SEARCH is able to replicate successful computer
implementation strategies in one state or locality and disseminate and
transfer those strategies to other states and localities. SEARCH is
also able to provide its assistance in a manner that promotes the
interstate compatibility of criminal justice information systems. The
beneficiaries are state and local criminal justice agencies throughout
the nation; the federal government, which is the largest single
consumer of arrest and conviction and other criminal justice
information; and the public.
This year the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
will accomplish the following: Provide in-depth technical assistance at
SEARCH's National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training
Center to representatives from state and local criminal justice
agencies; Provide on-site, technical assistance to state and local
criminal justice agencies; Provide technical assistance by telephone
and via the Internet to officials from literally hundreds of criminal
justice agencies in virtually every state in the union; Provide
training to nearly two thousand criminal justice officials nationally;
and Continue to develop and publish practical criminal justice
information system technical bulletins and reference guides.
SEARCH's information support program for state and local criminal
justice agencies makes a unique and vital contribution. Through a
comprehensive program of technical assistance and training, SEARCH
facilitates the operation of the criminal justice system in a cost-
effective, efficient and fair manner.
Benefits of the National Program
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program:
--Facilitates the development and implementation of state-of-the-art
computer and networking capabilities among state and local
criminal justice agencies with an emphasis on compatibility
throughout the nation;
--Improves the accuracy, completeness and reliability of arrest,
conviction and other criminal justice information;
--Increases the information capabilities of criminal justice
agencies, particularly small- and medium-sized criminal justice
agencies which often lack financial resources and specialized
computer personnel to operate computer systems in a cost-
efficient and effective manner;
--Improves the information system proficiency of criminal justice
officials, resulting in a nationwide cadre of law enforcement
officials trained in microcomputer technology and its
application to law enforcement;
--Provides assistance and training based upon a national perspective
and national strategy that promotes a consistent nationwide
approach to managing criminal justice information and
integrating information systems. A nationwide approach is
essential because the processing of individuals and cases
through the justice system depends on the sharing of
information between state, local and federal agencies
nationwide;
--Facilitates the effective and targeted expenditures of other
federal justice assistance monies;
--Services provided by the National Program act as ``seed'' monies,
leveraging state and local monies that then build upon the
foundation established by the National Program;
--Identifies state and local criminal justice information management
problems nationwide, and develops solutions that not only
benefit individual agencies, but that promote compatibility and
consistency with other state, local and federal systems; and,
--Replicates and disseminates successful information management
strategies on a national basis, emphasizing the efficient and
timely sharing of high-quality information, and, thus,
improving the effectiveness of the administration of justice.
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program assists
agencies in developing the information resources which are critical in
the reliable and timely identification of suspects and offenders; the
effective prosecution and adjudication of offenders, including drug-
related offenders; the efficient use of criminal justice resources; and
the production of comprehensive and compatible criminal justice
statistics and research information.
Furthermore, the National Technical Assistance and Training Program
provides essential infrastructure support to targeted block and
discretionary grant anti-crime and anti-drug initiatives. Without
information technology support, these initiatives are handicapped.
As an example of such technology support, SEARCH will gather
together hundreds of criminal justice practitioners from across the
country for a national training event that focuses on the integration
of justice information systems. The event will train criminal justice
practitioners on technology and its application to the justice system,
and will generate scores of requests for SEARCH technical assistance
from the attending agencies.
technical assistance program
SEARCH provides technical assistance via written correspondence,
telephone consultations, electronic mail, and/or through an Internet
web site, and when the needs of agencies require, SEARCH provides on-
site technical assistance.
In-house Technical Assistance
SEARCH's program of in-house technical assistance provides access
to a unique, centralized source of data about information management
systems and related technologies that would otherwise be beyond the
reach of most criminal justice agencies and, particularly, small- and
medium-sized agencies. Simply by placing a telephone call or sending
electronic mail, state and local criminal justice agencies have
immediate access to the specialized knowledge of SEARCH's professional
staff. Under fiscal year 1998 funding, SEARCH will respond to several
hundred telephone calls requesting technical assistance, which, on
average, require two hours of staff time to effectively respond.
The nature and scope of in-house technical assistance varies
considerably, but can involve the following: providing technical
consultations on the planning, implementation or operation of automated
systems, such as network configurations, software installations and
technical innovations; conducting in-depth research; making referrals
to other appropriate resource providers; and providing answers to
questions on a wide range of topics related to justice automation.
SEARCH has also taken advantage of the Internet to expand the reach
of its technical assistance program to justice agencies. The Technical
Assistance Exchange Forum Web Site was specifically designed so that
justice agencies of any size, in rural or urban locations, can
immediately access information on a variety of technical issues related
to justice information management via the World Wide Web. The web site
offers a virtual library of information to justice practitioners,
including published articles, documents and white papers; references to
other justice agencies using particular technologies; interactive
discussion forums where practitioners can share information with peers
and experts on particular technologies; requests for proposals and
requests for information databases; and links to other justice
technology resources and information.
On-site Technical Assistance
The Technical Assistance Program also provides on-site assistance
to agencies throughout the nation that are predominantly nonautomated
or lagging in automation, and which have special needs in automating
their information systems. Priority for technical assistance is given
to block grant recipients, and among them, to grantees planning for
and/or implementing multijurisdictional or statewide information
systems. Since 1986, SEARCH has provided technical assistance to scores
of agencies in every state, representing all components of the criminal
justice system.
The majority of technical assistance is completed within one month,
consists of a single site visit by two staff for approximately 2-3 days
duration, and includes staff preparation, follow-up and production of a
formal report. The following illustrates just a few examples of SEARCH
on-site technical assistance in the past year.
SEARCH conducted a technical assistance project with the Baltimore
(Maryland) Police Department to provide guidance on the development of
a records management system and automation planning in general. SEARCH
worked with Department staff and the Police Commissioner to define the
scope of the effort, staffing, organization, and strategies for
overcoming information technology implementation obstacles.
SEARCH completed a technical assistance project for the South
Carolina Department of Public Safety to evaluate a grant-funded effort
to provide the state's local law enforcement agencies with a hardware
and software package to meet local, state and federal information
reporting requirements. The software, developed by the University of
South Carolina, would enable local police departments to provide
incident-based data compliant with the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) and South Carolina's Incident-Based Reporting
System (SCIBRS). In connection with the project, SEARCH worked with the
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and visited seven police
departments beta testing the software to observe the testing and to
conduct interviews.
SEARCH provided technical assistance to a number of agencies in
Colorado during the past year. Network security issues were identified
and defined for the Canyon City Police Department. SEARCH also worked
with the First Judicial District Probation Department in Golden,
Colorado, to review the department's current operations, provide input
and assist with recommendations on development of a strategic plan for
its automated information systems and integration with state justice
information systems. On-site technical assistance has been scheduled
for Lakewood Police Department in early April 1998. This assistance
will focus on the Department's mobile computing project and development
of a new records information management system.
In New Jersey, SEARCH is working closely with the Camden Police
Department to assist this agency in an upgrade of records management,
digital mugshot imaging and automated fingerprint imaging systems.
During 1997-98, requests for technical assistance from SEARCH grew
at an enormous pace. In order to handle the volume of requests, in some
instances, where requests from numerous agencies were very similar in
scope and content, SEARCH has held training workshops for the
requesting agencies. In October 1997, SEARCH provided technical
assistance to 25 justice agency practitioners representing 16 agencies
in four states: Arizona, California, Hawaii and Texas. Each agency had
requested technical assistance from SEARCH on implementing computer-
aided dispatch, mobile computing hardware, records management systems
and wireless telecommunications systems. During a three-day workshop,
SEARCH staff and other operational experts provided assistance to the
participant agencies on planning for and implementing these systems. By
providing the assistance in a workshop manner, SEARCH was able to
convene operational and technology experts, as well as SEARCH staff to
provide assistance in a coordinated fashion. The workshop format
allowed SEARCH to assist more agencies and provide collectively more
resources.
Beyond these efforts to provide short-term assistance, there exists
a pressing need to provide more extensive, long-term technical
assistance to states and/or agencies within states to address the
technically complex and sophisticated planning, design and
implementation issues associated with developing integrated or
consolidated information systems within and between justice agencies;
and to assist these jurisdictions in developing state-, county- or
citywide plans for justice information systems and technology and
improvements in criminal records.
In response, SEARCH provides a limited number of agencies with
technical support for extended periods of time, including multiple on-
site visits, research and, often times, complementary training
sessions. During such a project, SEARCH will often work with a variety
of justice agencies, including police departments, courts, and
prosecutorial, probation, parole, corrections and case management
offices. In our experience, this type of project often produces
knowledge and products suitable for transfer to other jurisdictions.
Indeed, the vast majority of SEARCH's technical assistance is
multijurisdictional. When SEARCH provides technical assistance in one
state, SEARCH often involves practitioners from surrounding
jurisdictions.
This type of on-site assistance typically involves helping a state
or agency establish an automated justice information system, evaluate
and plan for statewide integration of existing automated justice
information systems, or assistance in enhancing, expanding or
implementing a computerized criminal history repository program.
SEARCH is providing long-term technical assistance to agencies in
Minnesota, New York, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon and Kansas,
specifically focusing on integrating county-level justice information
systems.
In fiscal year 1999, SEARCH would expect to provide on-site
technical assistance to several dozen criminal justice agencies.
national training program
Since its inception in 1986, SEARCH's National Technical Assistance
and Training Program has trained over 19,500 criminal justice officials
from every state in the use of computers and other information
technologies. In fiscal year 1998 alone, SEARCH will provide training
to approximately ,1700 state and local criminal justice officials
across the nation by presenting 25-30 in-house and outreach training
courses, as well as making presentations at training conferences
nationwide.
SEARCH's National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training
center in Sacramento serves as a hands-on resource for criminal justice
practitioners to learn about and evaluate computer technology. The
National Computer Laboratory and Training Center is presently
configured with 20 microcomputers using various operating systems and
is equipped with state-of-the-art training technology. It is critical
that this technology be maintained and updated on a regular basis.
Training sessions are customarily three to five days in length and
are normally limited to 25 students, thus affording a high instructor
to student ratio. Courses focus on the development, use and
implementation of information technology in justice agencies, including
introductory courses on microcomputer technology for criminal justice
agencies, data processing for law enforcement managers, as well as
advanced coursework in topics such as planning for automated systems,
crime analysis, the investigation of computer crime, and new courses
focusing on the investigation of crime perpetuated over the Internet.
SEARCH training in a particular state attracts participants from
various state, federal and local agencies and, often, from agencies in
neighboring states. For example, SEARCH training at the National
Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and Training Center, during the
past year involved students representing justice agencies from
throughout Colorado, Illinois and Kansas.
In other training activities, SEARCH presented the ``Investigation
of Computer Crime'' training course in Columbia, South Carolina. The
class was sponsored by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
Officers from the Division and other local officers attended the class.
During June 1997, SEARCH presented the ``Introduction to Internet
Crime Investigation'' in Somerset, Kentucky. The class was cosponsored
by the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office and was held at the Center for
Rural Development, University of Kentucky. Representatives of justice
agencies from throughout the state attended the course, which provides
instruction techniques to investigate cases online.
``The Investigation of Computer Crime'' training course will be
held in Anchorage, Alaska in March 1998. SEARCH is currently working
with the Alaska Department of Public Safety and the Anchorage Police
Department to sponsor this five-day training course, which teaches
investigators and support staff how to investigate high-technology
theft and computer-related crime. Participants learn computer
technology, its criminal applications and issues associated with
investigating these types of crimes.
The first offering of the new ``Advanced Internet Investigations''
training course was offered in Sacramento during December 1997. This is
an advanced course designed to improve law enforcement's ability to
successfully investigate and prosecute sophisticated Internet crimes.
During fiscal year 1998, SEARCH has also provided numerous training
seminars at the National Criminal Justice Computer Laboratory and
Training Center located at SEARCH headquarters in California. Criminal
justice practitioners from throughout the nation are eligible to
attend.
Info-Tech Training Project
During the past two years, the Computer Crime Unit of the U.S.
Department of Justice, in conjunction with the National White Collar
Crime Center, has conducted a federal level project to define how to
best train and equip the nation's criminal justice investigators and
prosecutors to deal with computer crime in the information age. The
organizing agencies invited SEARCH and other key justice agency
training organizations to participate in a series of meetings to
discuss the mission and functional objectives of computer crime
training for state and local justice practitioners.
The Infotech Training group continues to identify needs, gaps and
overlaps in current training, coordination of future training courses,
and setting standards for national justice training courses in the area
of curbing computer crime. Other organizations participating in the
group include: the Defense Department, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center, National Security Agency, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Secret
Service, Canadian Police College, Forensic Association of Computer
Technologists, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National
Association of Attorneys General, National College of District
Attorneys, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the
International Association of Computer Investigative Specialists.
Technical Assistance and Training Program Materials
SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and Training Program also
includes the preparation, publication and national dissemination of
materials and reports that assist criminal justice agencies in
acquiring and using computers and other information technology. SEARCH
publishes quarterly Technical Bulletins that identify and evaluate
information systems and technologies that have existing or potential
application in criminal justice management. The Bulletins are a vital
resource for criminal justice practitioners who receive them and help
to identify and encourage potential markets for private sector
development. The Bulletins are mailed to over 1,600 criminal justice
practitioners, and are also made available electronically via the
Internet.
Other types of SEARCH technical publications have included reports
on such topical issues as: countywide justice integration, the
implementation of the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS); biometric technologies; directories
which identify existing information systems for potential transfer;
program briefs, which guide agencies in implementing automated systems;
and comprehensive documentation for SEARCH-authored public domain
software.
SEARCH also professionally produced an instructional video on
planning for and implementing integrated justice information systems
that has been distributed free of charge to hundreds of local, state
and federal justice agencies throughout the country.
conclusion
Federal support for SEARCH's National Technical Assistance and
Training Program does not promise a quick victory or big headlines in
the war against crime and drugs. But, without question, federal support
for the National Technical Assistance and Training Program makes a
vital contribution to the war on crime and drugs. For a modest federal
investment, leveraged many times over by state and local funds, a
critical contribution is made to the ability of state and local
criminal justice agencies to provide timely, accurate and compatible
information for use in apprehending, prosecuting and sentencing
offenders.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee act to
ensure fiscal year 1999 funding of SEARCH's National Technical
Assistance and Training Program.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman, the members of your Subcommittee and
the Subcommittee staff for your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of Lee Arbetman, Coordinator, National Law-Related
Education Program
I am Lee Arbetman, Coordinator of the National Coordinated Law-
Related Education Program. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of
Youth for Justice, the National Coordinated Law-Related Education
Program. We respectfully request the Subcommittee's appropriations
support for fiscal year 1999.
LRE/Youth for Justice is committed to involving young people in
each state directly in identifying and implementing solutions to this
nation's epidemic of juvenile violence. The program's approach is to
teach young people about the law so that they can lead their lives
within the law. In the last decade, the National Program has reached
millions of at-risk children and trained hundreds of thousands of
teachers, juvenile justice counselors and law enforcement officials.
Law-Related Education, despite its name, has nothing whatsoever to
do with legal or pre-legal training. The National Coordinated Law-
Related Education Program has a proven record of success in juvenile
delinquency and violence prevention. Law-related lessons reach at-risk
children and juvenile offenders in school and juvenile justice settings
in both urban and rural environments. Youth for Justice meets its goals
by developing and maintaining strong, viable LRE centers in each state.
The National Program leverages a tiny federal investment, $1 million in
fiscal year 1998, many times over in private sector and state and local
money and in in-kind support from the criminal justice and juvenile
justice communities.
The program has two components. The first, and in 1998 the largest,
component of the program is intervention. This part of the program
operates primarily in various kinds of juvenile justice facilities. In
settings ranging from detention centers to training schools and after-
care, Law-Related Education Programs help youth develop problem-
solving, conflict resolution, and communication skills in the context
of engaging lessons that focus on personal responsibility.
The second component, prevention, operates primarily in elementary
and secondary schools. When you visit a school involved in this
program, you are very likely to see a teacher, a judge, a lawyer, the
town's police chief, a law student, or a probation officer working with
a class of students. In some of the best Youth for Justice classrooms,
police officers co-teach with classroom teachers on a daily basis.
Your home state of New Hampshire is a national leader in adopting
law-related education for use as both a prevention and intervention
program. In 1996, 365 lawyers visited 31,000 students in 205 schools
throughout the state as part of the Lawyer in Every School program. The
Mock Trial Competition and We the People high school competition will
attract participants from all over the state this year. A Peer
Mediation video for high school students is currently being added to
strengthen what is already a model program.
The State of Kentucky is another national leader in the adoption of
LRE programs. Every judicial district in Kentucky has a fully
operational court diversion program. Evaluation research conducted by
faculty at the Eastern Kentucky University Department of Corrections
has found that the recidivism rate for youth in the law-related
education intervention program is only about 7 percent compared to
about 20 percent for other youth who receive more traditional probation
services.
Another of the many success stories comes from Betty Ackman's mock
trial program at the Lorenzo Benn Campus, a Youth Development Center,
in Atlanta. Before she began her program, this campus had not sent any
of its youngsters to college. But of the 76 students who have been
through her mock trial program, 16 have gone on to college, together
receiving scholarships totaling more than $50,000. The recidivism rate
among her students is approximately 11 percent, compared to the normal
Youth Development Center rate of 75-80 percent.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to the continued commitment of this
Subcommittee, Youth for Justice, the National Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program has built a vital, cost-effective program serving the
needs of youth throughout our nation. This program:
--Involves young people in every state in identifying and
implementing solutions to the nation's epidemic of juvenile
violence;
--Promotes research-based educational programs that strive for safe,
disciplined and drug free schools and communities;
--Teaches young people acceptable ways to resolve conflict;
--Fosters constructive attitudes towards authority figures, such as
parents, teachers and police officers;
--Provides young people with meaningful opportunities to serve their
communities;
--Promotes understanding of and reasoned commitment to the rule of
law along with tolerance for varied points of view in a free
and diverse society; and
--Helps young people understand the democratic process and develop
the critical thinking, decision-making, and problem solving
skills to enable their full participation in that process.
Youth for Justice is committed to providing leadership in the
national effort to stop the outrage of violence committed by and
perpetrated against this nation's youth. We have the capacity to
involve young people directly in helping to identify and implement
solutions. With the support of Congress, Youth for Justice is
refocusing all programs to reflect the nation's growing concerns about
violence committed by and against young people in our schools and
communities.
--Law-Related Education is one of the few juvenile delinquency
prevention programs with a proven record of reducing delinquent
and antisocial behavior, increasing belief in the rule of law
and developing responsible citizenship.
--Law-Related Education focuses on violence prevention. This Spring,
thousands of young people from both the school and juvenile
justice settings are again gathering with public officials in
nearly every state, participating in Youth Summits designed to
help develop public policy to help prevent violence by and
against youth. During this fourth season of summits, thousands
of young people are taking a close look at the problem of
violence by and against youth. Recently, youngsters in
Wyoming's Youth Summit actually wrote a violence prevention
bill, lobbied the governor and the state legislature and were
successful in having the bill passed this session and signed by
the governor. As a result of this bill, teen courts are being
established throughout the state.
--Law-Related Education is an extraordinarily effective prevention
program, but it is also an extraordinarily effective
intervention program--Law-Related Education reaches juvenile
offenders in school settings as well as halfway houses,
detention centers, and other non-school settings.
--While Law-Related Education targets at-risk children, it does so
not just in urban settings but also in suburban and rural
environments.
--Law-Related Education is one of the most effective programs in
mobilizing volunteer support from the criminal justice
community, including law enforcement officers, prosecutors and
judges.
the national law-related education program
The National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program is comprised
of five not-for-profit corporations, each of which is recognized
nationally and internationally as a leader in the field of law and
civic education: The American Bar Association's Special Committee on
Youth Education for Citizenship; the Center for Civic Education; the
Constitutional Rights Foundation; the National Institute for Citizen
Education in the Law; and the Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center. By
combining their expertise and experience as teachers, school
administrators, juvenile justice professionals, attorneys and
professors, these five organizations have successfully administered a
nationwide program in which they have:
--Established and maintained an effective network of delinquency
prevention law and citizenship projects in all fifty states,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, so that accurate
information and effective materials can be efficiently
distributed and widely used without costly replication of
research and development efforts;
--Provided training and technical assistance to the state projects in
this network so that federal funding effectively leverages
public and private funding appropriate to each state;
--Established innovative law and citizenship programs for at-risk
youth in urban, rural and suburban communities, and Indian
reservations;
--Provided several hundred thousand hours of training for teachers,
law enforcement personnel and other professionals who work with
young people;
--Developed and field-tested quality, research-based curricular
materials for children--kindergarten through grade twelve--in
public and private schools, juvenile detention centers, after-
school programs and court-related diversion programs;
--Organized special initiatives on violence prevention, drug
prevention, juvenile justice and urban education, publishing
materials and sponsoring several thousand training events
nationwide;
--Mobilized thousands of volunteers with expertise in law, public
policy, drug and alcohol abuse prevention, juvenile justice and
other areas; and
--Provided leadership and organization for another season of Youth
Summits in the spring of 1998, involving youth and public
policy makers on a state-wide basis in developing plans to
solve the widespread problem of conflict and violence among our
nation's youth.
We at the National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program
acknowledge with pride the participation of dozens of organizations and
thousands of individuals from the education, legal, law enforcement,
judicial and juvenile justice communities. The Program has had
assistance from the executive branch and strong bipartisan support in
Congress for the outstanding delinquency prevention programs and
materials it has developed and implemented.
In addition, it is a particular source of satisfaction to note that
similar partnerships have been developed in most of the states
participating in this network. A small amount of federal support has
provided the impetus to attract funding from local organizations,
agencies and foundations as well as large numbers of volunteer hours.
One important goal of this Program is to continue to provide the
support and technical assistance necessary to enable all of the states
to build their own public/private partnership networks, effectively
leveraging a small amount of federal assistance to build strong, well-
funded local and state programs.
evaluations of law-related education
For the past two decades, researchers have consistently reported
that law-related curricula and instruction make a positive impact on
youth, when compared with traditional approaches to teaching and
learning law, civics and government. A review of the research in law-
related education and related fields (including scholarly papers,
dissertations, journal articles, and book chapters) conducted by Dr.
Jeffrey W. Cornett and published on April 1, 1997 in monograph form
concludes that LRE programs have a positive effect on student knowledge
about law and legal processes, and about individual rights and
responsibilities. In addition, the report concludes that there is
evidence that LRE programs have a positive influence on student
attitudes and behavior. Research studies indicate that effective LRE
programs have improved juveniles' attitudes toward the justice system
and toward authorities. Research findings also indicate a link between
particular LRE programs and youth who, as a result of law-related
education, exhibit more law-abiding behavior and commit fewer
delinquent acts.
Within the next ninety days, the National Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program will be releasing impact data from demonstration
programs in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. showing the
positive effect that Law-Related Education can have on the highest at-
risk youth. This data is the culmination of a three-year effort to test
the impact of Law-Related Education on at-risk youth in the most
challenging environments.
A four-year national quantitative evaluation of Law-Related
Education was carried out in 32 schools in six different states from
1980-1984. Conducted by the Center for Action Research and the Social
Science Education Consortium of Boulder, Colorado, the evaluation found
that:
--Law-Related Education, when implemented properly, reduces those
factors associated with delinquent behavior;
--Law-Related Education, more than any other subject, fostered a
belief in students that laws are legitimate and should be
obeyed; and
--Some of the positive effects of Law-Related Education included
reduction of school infractions, decrease in the use of alcohol
and other drugs, and a decrease in other delinquent behaviors.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has noted
that evaluations of Law-Related Education Program have been
``encouraging * * * confirming the previous findings that such
education serves as a significant deterrent to delinquent behavior.''
Eighth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP, p. 60 (1985).
The Twelfth Analysis and Evaluation of Federal Juvenile Delinquency
Programs published in 1988 similarly states, ``[A] national study
suggests that Law-Related Education, when properly implemented, can
reduce the tendency to engage in delinquent behavior.''
Dr. Timothy Buzzell of Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, in
1992 published a study of one of the first Law-Related Education
Programs in a juvenile justice setting. He found over the six year
period of the study that a Law-Related Education Program implemented at
the state training school for boys positively influenced risk factors
commonly correlated with delinquent behavior.
A 1993 study of a Law-Related Education diversion alternative in
Kentucky's Designated Court Worker Program showed both improved
perceptions of the police and a low recidivism rate (10\1/2\ percent
after one year).
Of course, even if these conclusions are accepted, and even if it
is recognized that the National Program has a unique and remarkable
record of achievement, Law-Related Education must still justify
appropriations support. In other words, why should this subcommittee
support an appropriation for the National Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program?
--First, without congressional support it is now clear that the
National Coordinated Law-Related Education Program will die. In
fiscal year 1996, without earmark support, OJJDP slashed LRE
funding by almost 35 percent, from $2.8 million to $1.9
million. In fiscal year 1997, with a soft earmark calling for
``continued support for law related education,'' OJJDP again
slashed LRE's funding (even though OJJDP's own funding was
increased) almost 33 percent, from $1.9 million to $1 million.
For fiscal year 1998, LRE's funding remains at $1 million
thanks to an earmark in the fiscal year 1998 Conference Report
calling for continued funding at the fiscal year 1997 level.
While OJJDP has stated publicly that it recognizes Law-Related
Education's important value, we believe that, absent a specific
dollar amount for earmark support for LRE, OJJDP will again
deeply slash funding for the National Coordinated LRE Program.
--Second, it is also clear that LRE works and that it is one of the
few programs proven to do so.
--Third, the federal government and, in particular, the Congress, has
made a substantial investment over more than a decade in the
creation of a National Coordinated Law-Related Education
network and infrastructure including coordinating organizations
in every state.
--Fourth, only a national program will undertake national initiatives
that benefit the entire country, such as national training;
national technical assistance; state financial assistance; new
program and curriculum development such as Law-Related
Education's highly successful and acclaimed Youth Summits; and
the replication of successful state programs and the avoidance
of unsuccessful pilot programs.
--Fifth, federal money is seed money used to sustain a national
program which raises more than seven times the federal support
through state legislative support, private donations, and in-
kind support.
For all of these reasons, the National Coordinated Law-Related
Education Program is seeking earmark support at the $1.9 million level.
This Subcommittee approved funding at $1.9 million for fiscal year
1998. (The House earmark called for one million and, as noted, the
Conference Report adopted the House number.) Mr. Chairman, this is a
difficult time. There are enormous challenges facing the juvenile
justice community and the Congress as all of us continue to wrestle
with frequent, persistent and increasingly violent juvenile crime. It
is a time to reassess and reevaluate. We would submit, however, that it
is not a time to allow a multi-million dollar investment--which has
been proven to work to reduce juvenile delinquency and which in recent
years has developed new and effective intervention initiatives for
youth violence, drugs and delinquency--to perish.
We thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this subcommittee,
for your support over all these many years and we ask for your
continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New
Jersey
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is
the largest health sciences university in the nation and the only one
designated as a statewide system for health care. UMDNJ comprises seven
schools on five academic campuses in Camden, New Brunswick/Piscataway,
Newark, Scotch Plains and Stratford. We own and operate UMDNJ-
University Hospital in Newark, the primary teaching hospital of the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School and home to New Jersey's Level One
Trauma Center. UMDNJ also comprises three core primary teaching
hospitals, five health care facilities, an integrated behavioral health
delivery system, and has affiliations with more than 100 health care
and educational institutions statewide.
It is with great pleasure and pride that UMDNJ submits testimony to
the Senate Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee on Appropriations to
respectfully request your support for an initiative of national
importance and significance: the Violence Institute of New Jersey at
UMDNJ.
The Violence Institute of New Jersey (VINJ) at UMDNJ is a site-
specific project recommended by Congress as a candidate for the Justice
Department's Byrne Discretionary Grant program. Our goal is to
coordinate a comprehensive approach to understanding and preventing
various aspects of violence, including child abuse, youth violence,
violence against women, elder abuse, substance abuse, the development
of aggression, the biological mechanisms of violence and the treatment
of traumatic injury as a result of violence.
The establishment of the Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ
constitutes a major commitment by the University's President, its Board
of Trustees and the collaborative efforts of the 40-plus statewide
programs that address various approaches to violence--research,
education, prevention and treatment. The VINJ has made considerable
progress over the past year in developing a unique, coordinated
approach to all aspects of violence, providing ample evidence of the
extraordinary promise this Institute can and will make on behalf of the
citizens of New Jersey.
The mission of the Violence Institute is to facilitate the
understanding, prevention and treatment of violence across the life
span. The Institute seeks to build strong programs for the prevention
and treatment of violence through collaborations within the University
and with community-based partners. VINJ's mission is to support,
coordinate and conduct violence-related research; to educate students,
health care and law enforcement professionals and the public on
violence-related issues and solutions; to serve as a clearinghouse for
information and data on violence; and to seek a leadership role in the
development of public policy on violence-related issues.
Last year, a colloquy was included in the Congressional Record as
part of the Senate consideration of the fiscal year 1998 Commerce/
Justice/State Appropriations bill. The colloquy recognized VINJ's
efforts to curb violent behavior in all aspects of society and
concluded that the Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ is worthy
of support from the Department of Justice.
Also, last year, VINJ was cited as a violence prevention/research
resource in the House Report on the Juvenile Crime Control and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997. As a result, the Attorney General
of the State of New Jersey wrote to the President of UMDNJ and offered
his support for the VINJ and encouraged collaboration between his
office and the Violence Institute. As a result, the VINJ is working
closely with our State Department of Law and Public Safety. The
Institute is expanding its training and consultation in support of law
enforcement activities in New Jersey. We also met with the Association
of County Prosecutors to engage in similar initiatives at the county
level.
The VINJ was asked by the New Jersey Department of Education to
submit a proposal to the U.S. Secretary of Education for programs to
prevent youth violence. Funding is also being sought to disseminate the
SANKOFA Violence Prevention Training Program to high schools throughout
New Jersey. The SANKOFA program has been submitted to the State
Juvenile Justice Commission and a demonstration project is being
launched this year. There is interest in expanding this program
statewide, targeting juvenile justice populations in New Jersey and in
Alabama.
Another important initiative of the VINJ, the Social Problem
Solving Program, is regarded as one of the nation's leading programs of
social and emotional learning and conflict resolution. The program
provides training and technical assistance to 20 new school districts
in New Jersey each year and is being used in 22 other states across the
country.
VINJ organized several major conferences on violence including a
joint conference with the State Department of Health and Senior
Services on Youth Violence, and a Violence Against Women conference co-
sponsored by UMDNJ, The Foundation of UMDNJ, Wakefern Food Corporation
and the Warner-Lambert Company.
In recognition of the efforts of the VINJ, the State of New Jersey
committed $750,000 in its fiscal year 1998 appropriation to UMDNJ to
support the mission of the Violence Institute. These funds are used
primarily for infrastructure needs, while federal funds are needed to
expand VINJ's education, research, training and program support. An
additional state appropriation of $750,000 has been included as part of
the Governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999.
Some of the state appropriation will be used to provide seed grants
to address emerging issues on violence. Federal funds will enable the
VINJ to expand grant opportunities and increase our ability to attract
future funding from state, federal and private funding sources.
The Violence Institute of New Jersey at UMDNJ has achieved
remarkable success in a short period of time and with little resources.
Our programs have achieved national and local recognition and have
garnered about $24 million in funding over the past six years, half of
which came from federal sources. A modest federal investment in the
VINJ will allow the Institute to develop its administrative, data
management and technical assistance core, and to expand its education,
research and training programs to the community.
We, therefore, respectfully request your support by providing UMDNJ
with funding of $3 million through the Department of Justice that will
enhance the development of the Violence Institute of New Jersey at
UMDNJ as a state and national resource for the prevention and treatment
of violence in our society.
______
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Prepared Statement of Daniel F. Geisler, President, American Foreign
Service Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Daniel F.
Geisler, President of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).
On behalf of the Association, I wish to express our appreciation for
the opportunity to again submit testimony to the Subcommittee regarding
the fiscal year 1999 funding for the Department of State, the United
States Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
As you know, AFSA is the professional organization representing the
23,000 active duty and retired Foreign Service Officers and
Specialists. We also serve a labor function as the recognized
bargaining agent for the active duty Foreign Service personnel in five
government agencies: the State Department, the Agency for International
Development, the U.S. Information Agency, the Foreign Commercial
Service of the Commerce Department and the Department of Agriculture's
Foreign Agricultural Service. From either perspective, professional or
labor, the Foreign Service is our constituency. For that reason, this
bill is of vital interest to us because it directly affects us both in
the workplace and in our quality of life.
The Secretary of State, in previous testimony before this
Subcommittee and before other Congressional committees, spoke clearly
and effectively of the complex world in which we live. She explained
why the United States of America must remain engaged. AFSA agrees.
There is no alternative to American leadership. Our domestic interests,
especially our national security, are conditioned by world events. Our
economic prosperity, the safety of our young men and women in uniform,
the quality of our environment, the fight against drugs, and the
security of our borders are tied to our ability to shape those world
events.
Recent events in Iraq demonstrate how diplomacy can prevent
bloodshed. They also demonstrated how many Americans believe diplomacy
should be our first option for shaping the world to ensure our security
and our prosperity. That is the heart of diplomacy: shaping world
events to further our national interests. That is the mission of the
Foreign Service, a mission we accomplish together with our colleagues
from the Civil Service, and our Foreign Service National employees.
To accomplish our mission, we need the right tools. We need the
right people, and they need the right skills. We need modern
technology, especially information and communications technology. And
we need things that people sometimes assume we have, such as safe
buildings to work and live in. AFSA strongly believes that the State
Department and the other foreign affairs agencies must use the public's
tax money wisely. We believe just as strongly that America cannot get
the world class diplomatic corps it needs and deserves if we try to do
it on the cheap.
Thanks to the leadership of this Subcommittee, and that of your
counterpart on the House side, we saw in fiscal year 1998 a reversal of
the continued decrease in funding for the international affairs
account, a decline that had been a constant feature of federal spending
for more than a decade. This year for the first time we will hire to
attrition so that our workforce will not shrink further. Given the
tight budget considerations then and now, we appreciate the political
courage and the hard work that went into making this possible. Thanks
to the Senate appropriations level, there was a marked increase in
funding for the technology account--in fact greater than the
Administration requested for fiscal year 1998. That is important to the
Foreign Service. We share the Subcommittee's concern about the need to
modernize our information systems.
This turn-around in funding for the international affairs account
came none too soon. But the modest increase in fiscal year 1998 funding
has not eliminated the shortfalls in our diplomatic readiness that have
accumulated. Thus the American Foreign Service Association supports,
and urges the Subcommittee to support, at minimum, the Administration's
foreign affairs increased funding request for fiscal year 1999.
We still face critical but costly infrastructure needs in capitals
like Berlin and Beijing. Beyond these, there are countless repair jobs
to our facilities around the world that continue to be put off--costing
more in the long run. State Department managers have estimated that our
infrastructure needs, especially overseas, outstrip our resources by a
factor of two.
Over the last three years, we have lowered the flag in 32 American
posts abroad. In East Asia and the Pacific, for example, 7 missions
were closed, as well as 12 USIA missions and branch posts. These posts
were America's forward deployment. Our posts abroad are the bases of
operation for shaping world events to further our national interests.
Closing all of our USIS branch posts in South Korea, for example,
hampers our ability to explain to the Korean public our efforts to
foster financial stability in East Asia at a time when they and their
government have some tough financial decisions to make. The absence of
an American presence abroad robs us of opportunities to tell America's
story, to serve American travelers, and to promote American business.
But funds by themselves are not sufficient--funding must be used
smartly. That means planning for an uncertain future, being ready to
meet unforeseen challenges, and developing a flexible diplomatic corps
today to serve America's needs tomorrow. It is difficult, but we
believe it can be done.
AFSA has long advocated, and we hope the Subcommittee will do so
also, that the Department of State establish a true needs-based system
of strategic personnel planning. Work force management has been static
and backward looking. We need, instead, a dynamic and forward looking
system, reflecting new functions as well as needs. We must begin now by
projecting our needs in five years to ten years, setting our priorities
of implementation, and devising a system for allocating scarce
personnel resources to reach our objectives. Large companies are able
to do this, and so should the Department of State. Few people from the
open job market come pre-equipped with both the diplomatic skills and
the substantive knowledge required of an effective Foreign Service
Officer or Specialist. We recruit some of the most talented people this
country has to offer, and we give them the combination of formal
training and on-the-job experience they need to achieve our mission. It
takes time. It takes planning. We need to plan systematically today if
we are to still have a top-ranking diplomatic corps tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, there is one area of concern that I wish to raise
with this Subcommittee--the increasing burden of service abroad.
Foreign Service Officers and Specialists make themselves worldwide
available to carry out the mission of American diplomacy. That often
means service in parts of the world that are unpleasant, unhealthy or
dangerous. A disciplined Service such as ours calls on its members, and
on its members' families, to make sacrifices. Ms. Patricia Ryan, then
President of the American Association of Foreign Service Women, said
about family life in the Foreign Service, that:
``Foreign Service professionals and their families face hardships
on a daily basis. In many places there is the risk of endemic disease
and the lack of modern medical facilities. Water is often undrinkable,
and food must be scrubbed and cooked in order to be safely eaten. While
serving at distant posts, they are separated from friends and family.
Due to security measures, living conditions are increasingly isolated.
Children have limited opportunities to participate in activities and
often have difficulties adjusting to new environments.''
We do not think Congress intended to make service abroad a
financial burden. In fact, Congress enacted 5 USC Secs. 5925 and 5928
to lighten the burden of hardship and danger. However, AFSA is
concerned that we are moving to a situation where this kind of
adjustment may no longer have any meaning. This is because since 1994
the State Department has been reducing hardship allowances in 68
percent of the hardship-designated posts, and Foreign Service
personnel, when serving abroad, lose the D.C. area locality pay
adjustment forcing them, in essence, to take a cut in salary. This
combination may sharply reduce hardship or danger compensation when
compared to service in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that the Congress and especially this
Subcommittee understand this serious concern of the Foreign Service.
We Foreign Service men and women serve today in countries marred by
violence and civil unrest, and severe economic and political
instability. We serve because we believe in our country and we believe
in our mission. We serve at increasing personal cost, including
financial cost. Reductions in benefits, as well as lack of an equalizer
for locality pay, have meant that our people may actually take a cut in
salary to serve America abroad. Many of us serve with outdated
equipment, while living in substandard housing, and in the face of an
expanding workload without equally expanding resources.
Mr. Chairman, AFSA asks that we be given the tools we need to shape
world events to advance America's national interests. We firmly support
full funding of the international affairs account for fiscal year 1999,
and we ask that the Subcommittee move quickly on this legislation.
I thank the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify on this important matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for International Educational and
Cultural Exchange
The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
(Alliance) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the
subcommittee in support of the United States Information Agency and the
educational and cultural exchange programs which it administers. We
urge an appropriation of $210 million for USIA exchange programs--$11
million above the Administration's request.
The Alliance is a broad coalition of sixty non-profit organizations
which conduct exchange programs. The Alliance's members are extremely
diverse and include academic, citizen, and youth exchange
organizations. Some of these organizations receive part of their
funding through USIA grants. Others do not. All, however, share the
conviction that international exchange programs such as those
administered by the USIA are an extremely effective and cost-efficient
means of serving our national interests both at home and abroad.
We enthusiastically applaud the Administration's proposed increase
in Fulbright educational exchanges. We are seriously concerned,
however, that the cultural, professional, and citizen exchange programs
slated for a significant $7.5 million reduction will indisputably lead
to atrophy and deterioration of the vast network of committed citizen
volunteers throughout the United States which provide both visitor
programming and hospitality in most communities. A $210 million
appropriation would prevent the destructive funding reductions in the
exchange account, and allow professional and cultural exchange programs
to be funded proportionately with the flagship Fulbright program.
In order to understand the role that exchange programs play in the
present, it is perhaps useful to put them into a historical
perspective. The International Visitor Program and its precursors go
back more than five decades. Beginning in 1940, the federal government
initiated a program to bring grantees--``the molders of thought and
opinion''--to the United States for short-term visits. By the mid-
1940's, the world was struggling with the devastating effects of World
War II and the aftermath of nuclear warfare. In 1946, Senator J.
William Fulbright saw a crucial opening to break new ground in the
field of international relations and set the foundations of educational
and cultural exchange. He created what is now known worldwide as the
Fulbright program. The range of U.S. exchange programs undoubtedly
helped to shape the stable Europe that emerged after World War II.
While today's global challenges are quite different from the late
1940's paradigm, the need for people-to-people exchange is greater than
ever. As former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger stated, ``If we
are to succeed in the next century as we did during the Cold War, we
must make the same commitment to the [exchange] programs that equip
American foreign policy to project our values and ideas.'' This
statement provides a private sector perspective on how the
Administration's exchange budget simultaneously addresses and fails to
address a commitment to exchange programs as we approach the new
millennium.
fulbright educational exchange program increase
An independent study of the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program
released in 1997 concluded that Fulbright exchanges for students,
teachers, and scholars are critical to American interests, especially
given the rate of global change and the dynamics of a global economy.
The study report ``Fulbright at Fifty'' calls for restoration of
Fulbright Program funding to the fiscal year 1995 level of $125
million. In recognition of the Fulbright Program's value, the fiscal
year 1999 budget calls for a modest increase of $5 million for
Fulbright exchanges from the current level of $94 million. The Alliance
firmly supports the proposed increase. Coming after a decline of
approximately 25 percent in the program's funding over the last three
years, the additional funding is urgently needed.
The Fulbright Program engages a wide network of U.S. institutions
of higher education; private, non-profit international exchange
organizations; and Fulbright alumni and community volunteers. In
addition, the Fulbright program is extensively and consistently cost-
shared by foreign governments and participants. Significant funding
cuts over the last three years have threatened to erode the Fulbright
Program's ability to leverage foreign government support. Several key
allies of the United States reduced their spending on Fulbright
exchanges after the U.S. cut funds for Fulbright exchanges with their
countries. The U.S. budget for Fulbright exchanges must signal to
foreign partners that the Fulbright program is a U.S. priority and will
be funded accordingly.
U.S. citizens who have received Fulbright grants return to their
country with enhanced skills, deeper understandings of other cultures
and of their own, and international connections which prove beneficial
to their communities. For example, one returned Fulbrighter noted that
`` a Fulbright grant enabled me to get the research experience to
return to the U.S. and set up a biomedical research laboratory
specializing in homeostatis and thrombosis that over the years has
become one of the most prominent such laboratories in the United
States''. The Fulbright Program has proven its capacity to develop both
local and international leaders in business, government, education,
public administration, the arts, and the professions; to increase
understanding of the United States among foreign leaders and publics;
and to promote our country's interests in prosperity and security
through peaceful relationships with other nations.
The restoration of $5 million to the Fulbright program would be a
positive step in this process and would help insure that the modest
investment the U.S. government makes in Fulbright exchanges will
continue to provide excellent returns to the communities throughout the
country which send and receive Fulbright students, teachers, and
scholars.
attrition in the international visitors/citizen exchange program
networks
Despite the farsighted Fulbright increase in the Administration's
budget, the proposed reduction of $7.6 million in cultural and
professional exchange activities will erode even further the
infrastructure of community organizations across the country that
support them. While leveraging significant private contributions,
citizen and cultural exchange programs engage tens of thousands of
volunteers--``citizen diplomats''--in communities throughout the U.S.
Citizen diplomats volunteer their time because they recognize the
tremendous value which globalization has both for themselves and their
communities--it creates new trading partners, builds understanding and
cooperation between Americans and future foreign leaders, advances
democracy and economic growth, and creates opportunities for Americans
to learn, to prosper, and to work with others to solve shared problems
and make our future more secure. USIA has carefully developed diverse
tools to reach each of the above goals.
For example, many USIA International Visitors (IV) programs are
geared towards democracy building. A recent IV program focused on
democratic institution-building in Zimbabwe. After returning home, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice, both IV
participants, are making a noticeable difference. The Chief Justice
ruled that an election law favoring public funding for the ruling party
was unconstitutional. When the Parliament protested, the Minister of
Justice publicly chastised the parliamentarians, declaring that the
independence of the judiciary is the sine qua non of democracy. Nearly
150 present and past foreign heads of state made their first visits to
the United States on an exchange program. Citizen exchange programs
advance important U.S. national interests by building understanding and
cooperation between Americans and future foreign leaders.
The Alliance supports a budget which has equity and proportionality
in funding increases for Fulbright and cultural/professional
exchanges--roughly five percent. While these programs help our country
to reach its foreign policy goals outlined in the strategic plan,
professional and cultural exchange programs are renowned for their
ability to leverage involvement and engagement domestically. For every
federal dollar invested in exchange programs, the General Accounting
Office estimates that twelve dollars are raised through private sector
contributions.
Slashing these grassroots programs which democratize foreign
affairs by involving thousands of Americans will erode an ability to
meet the continuing public diplomacy challenges our country faces as
the world's only superpower. A modest, proportional increase in the
cultural/professional account will allow USIA to maintain the full
diversity of its time-tested program tools to support U.S. foreign
policy.
33 percent reduction for overseas advising
Included in the Administration's budget is a paralyzing reduction
for one of our country's most cost-effective foreign affairs program--
overseas student advising. This activity, funded through USIA's
exchange programs budget, makes a truly remarkable contribution to our
long-term foreign policy interests and to our balance of trade. The
Administration has requested reducing the overseas advising budget
$1.02 million, a 33 percent reduction.
With an fiscal year 1998 budget around $3 million, USIA provided
partial support to over 500 advising centers worldwide. Centers provide
authoritative, unbiased information and advice on American higher
education to prospective foreign students, and frequently serve as test
sites for standardized tests required for university admission. Last
year, nearly 458,000 foreign students contributed $7.3 billion to the
U.S. economy, generating 150,000 jobs. These numbers make higher
education our country's fifth largest service export. The modest U.S.
investment in advising clearly pays for itself many times over.
The benefits we gain from foreign students go well beyond our trade
balance. Future leaders from around the world who study here learn our
values, and they take those values home with them. The recent explosion
of prosperity and democracy throughout Latin America, for example,
corresponds precisely with the rise to power of a generation of leaders
educated in the United States. These developments have a profound
positive impact on our own security and prosperity. Our competitors--
Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan--certainly recognize
these impacts and have themselves adopted assertive policies for
attracting foreign students. As U.S. funding for overseas advising
drops, we are already losing market share to our competitors.
Increasing the exchange budget appropriation will allow us to maintain
our position in the global higher education market and perhaps even
allow for modest ``comeback'' in this highly successful, textbook
example of a cost-effective program.
conclusion
We in the exchange community recognize the difficult task before
this subcommittee in attempting to meet the needs of a diverse array of
national interests. With the potential $1.5 billion increase in foreign
affairs spending (function 150) over fiscal year 1998 levels, we urge
the subcommittee to fund a modest increase for educational and cultural
exchange programs. The federal role in fostering people to people
connections is crucial, without it, the enormous private sector
leveraging benefits will cease.
The proposed budget makes the crucial first step by providing a
modest funding increase for the Fulbright program; we hope it will
begin to restore the substantial 20 percent drop in the number of
Fulbright participants. We urge your support for the Fulbright program.
To allow USIA the full diversity of tools to reach its foreign
policy goals, we urge the subcommittee to take the next step and adopt
a modest increase for the range of cultural and professional exchange
programs which democratize foreign affairs for tens of thousands of
Americans across the United States. They boast enormous benefits to
American communities while exposing foreign leaders to our political
values and aims. To prevent atrophy in the time-tested volunteer
networks which make the these program possible, and to allow for a
modest increase in the Fulbright program, we strongly recommend a
fiscal year 1999 exchange program budget funded at $210 million.
______
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Prepared Statement of Barry K. Rogstad, President, American Business
Conference and Chairman, Board of Overseers, Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award
Mr. Chairman: I am Barry Rogstad, President of the American
Business Conference and Chairman of the Board of Overseers for the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The Board of Overseers is the
legislatively mandated oversight body for the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present my
views--and those of the Board--on the Baldrige Award, the unique and
important role this Award plays in strengthening America's
competitiveness, and the compelling arguments for expanding the Award
to include education and health care categories.
I would like to summarize the key points which we believe the
Congress should factor into the deliberations on funding the Baldrige
Award to include education and health care categories.
Baldrige Has Been a Primary Driver of Restoring America's Competitive
Edge
In 1987, Congress initiated what proved to be the major milestone
in the quality movement in the United States and a major source of
inspiration for improving U.S. business competitiveness: The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award. For the first time, quality was
recognized at the national level as a key factor in the competitiveness
of U.S. firms. The Baldrige Award has served as an important
dissemination point for best performance practices, and tens of
thousands of U.S. companies have used the Baldrige criteria to
strengthen their competitiveness.
Over 1\1/2\ million copies of the Award criteria have been
distributed. Over 40 states now have Award programs. Over 1,000
organizations applied for awards throughout the national system in
1997. Over 30,000 sharing sessions have been held by Baldrige Award
winners. Companies representing two-thirds of the GDP have participated
in the Baldrige process. More than 25 nations have emulated the
Baldrige process. The Baldrige public/private partnership has
accomplished more than any other program in revitalizing the American
economy.
The Business Community Wants Baldrige Categories in Education and
Health Care
Starting in 1990, representatives of the business community
requested creation of Baldrige award categories in education and health
care. They believed then, and continue to believe now, that creation of
these categories would improve education and health care quality, would
control costs to business associated with worker health care and lost
work time for remedial education, and would allow transfer of knowledge
from business process improvements and management systems to the
education and health care sectors.
Businesses have achieved 15-40 percent reductions in cost through
process improvements and prevention-based systems. Costs of U.S. goods
and services are greatly impacted by the costs of employee health care
benefits. While business health care costs have been restrained over
the last couple of years, annual health premium increases for American
business remain a significant concern. U.S. workers are not educated
for today's jobs. Businesses state that remedial education costs
industry significant time and money. Many in the business community
believe the education system doesn't understand its customers. The
business community believes that extending the Baldrige performance
management system to education and health care will begin the learning
process that could attack some of these problems. Addressing these
issues is critical to survival in an internationally competitive
marketplace.
The Education and Health Care Communities Need and Want Baldrige Award
Categories
Education and health care are today where American businesses were
12-15 years ago. They are being challenged to meet more demanding
performance standards and higher customer expectations, and deliver
quality services all at lower costs--and are increasingly being held
accountable for their performance. Therefore, education and health care
leaders are searching for improvement strategies that work. American
businesses have proven that Baldrige does work. Therefore, education
and health care leaders can and are eager to accelerate their own
improvement efforts by using Baldrige, with community input and
support, to redesign the way they do business.
Starting in 1992, K-12 and higher education and health care
organizations asked for creation of Baldrige Award categories in
education and health care. In 1995, successful pilot programs were
conducted in education and health care. Applicants in the pilot
program, who participated strictly for the learning with no awards
being presented, represented a broad array of education and health care
organizations. Between five and ten times the number of expected
applicants participated in this pilot program. These organizations
included: individual K-12 schools, small rural and major urban K-12
school districts, colleges, universities, technical schools, hospitals,
managed care health systems, HMO's, individual physicians practices,
nursing homes, and ambulance services.
Over 30,000 organizations have used the pilot education and health
care criteria developed in 1995. The 30,000 number is based on copies
of the criteria distributed by NIST. Beyond that, education and health
care criteria have been distributed by many of the state and local
award programs that use the NIST criteria.
In the survey that followed the 1995 Pilot Program for education
and health care, 93 percent of the participants rated the relevance of
the Baldrige Pilot Criteria to improving organizational performance as
very good or excellent. 78 percent of the applicants rated the
relevance and importance of the Feedback Report they received in
helping their organizations improve as very good or excellent. 89
percent of the evaluators who participated said they benefited from the
synergism created by having business, education and health care
evaluators work together during evaluations so that lessons could be
shared across the sectors.
The organizations that are charged with stimulating performance
improvement are gravitating toward Baldrige. Accrediting agencies are
working with NIST to establish award categories for education and
health care. Continuous quality improvement is being embedded in their
accreditation criteria. Regional accrediting organizations (K-12 and
high education) are allowing schools to use the Baldrige Criteria as an
alternative tool for accreditation. The state of New Jersey has just
passed legislation allowing the use of Baldrige Criteria as an
alternative assessment tool on a statewide basis. The Joint Commission
on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) has published a
criteria crosswalk between their accreditation criteria and Baldrige
criteria to encourage performance excellence. Two federal advisory
commissions have recently issued statements in support of creation of
Baldrige Award categories. The National Commission on the Cost of
Higher Education has endorsed establishment of a Baldrige category for
education and the Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and
Quality in the Health Care Industry, in its draft report, endorses
establishment of a Baldrige Award category for health care.
Both Secretaries Shalala and Riley of the Departments of Health and
Human Services and Education, support creation of Baldrige Award
categories for health and education, respectively.
The Baldrige Office Should Administer All of the Programs
NIST as an organization embodies and conveys an image of high
standards--vigorous standards that are applied to high performance and
built-in continuous improvement cycles. Also under NIST leadership, the
Baldrige Award is being used not just as an end point, but to encourage
the winners and others to achieve even greater results.
The original national award process has prompted a network of state
and local award programs that now covers over 40 states. These programs
are responsible for creating a true national system committed to
performance improvement and performance excellence. These programs, in
essence, have formed a nationwide network committed to supporting
performance excellence of all types of institutions--business,
government, education, and health care--within their respective states
and communities. Therefore they rely heavily on Baldrige materials
which include: annually-updated Baldrige Criteria, Baldrige case
studies, and Baldrige examiner training materials.
State and local programs need up-to-date Baldrige educational
materials for health care and education if they are to continue having
viable programs, and if they are to continue fostering a national
network committed to education and health care quality improvement.
The Rollout Under NIST Will Leverage Extensive Private Sector and
Community Engagement
The national focus and Presidential award ceremony make it possible
for the Baldrige Program to attract thousands of volunteers through its
federal/state award program network. The volunteers regard their
participation as service to their country. An estimated 4,000-5,000
volunteers operate in the federal/state network. The overall network
has an activity level of more than $100 million per year. This means
that for every appropriated dollar to NIST, other sources contributed
about $35.
Another important type of contribution to the national effort is
the work of Baldrige Award recipients--at no cost to the Federal
Government. These award recipients have held many thousands of sharing
sessions. If we add to this the contribution of state and local award
recipients, the total contribution would amount to several million
dollars per year.
The Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is
raising a new endowment to support education and health care categories
in anticipation of a partnership with the federal government. We are
going to leaders in education and health care to insure their active
participation in all phases of this Baldrige expansion. The Baldrige
Foundation has elected four new Directors to join the six industry
Directors and help with the establishment of Baldrige Award Categories
for education and health care. The four new Directors are Dr. G. Wayne
Clough, President of the Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr. H.
Richard Nesson, President of Partners HealthCare System, Inc. (the
organization that is responsible for Massachusetts General Hospital);
Dr. Robert R. Waller, President and CEO of the Mayo Foundation; and Dr.
Arnold R. Weber, Chancellor of Northwestern University.
The Foundation is actively raising a $15 million endowment to
support these new categories, contingent upon a partnership with the
Federal Government. The Foundation considers the partnership critical
to the success of the existing Baldrige Program for business and
equally critical to new Baldrige Programs for education and health
care. Volunteers who participate in the program consider their
participation as service to their country and the tie to the Federal
government is vital for that partnership.
Over the past decade, many of us in the business community have
been involved with trying to make a meaningful contribution to improve
K-12 education. These efforts, focusing on interactions between local
school systems and companies, have shown considerable results, but
there remains much to be done. Baldrige represents a comprehensive
approach to systemic management improvement that can yield significant
productivity gains to local education (and health care) institutions.
We have proven it works for business; we believe it can be a catalyst
for similar improvements in the education and health care sectors.
In conclusion, as business leaders we want to see the Baldrige
framework introduced into health care and education. We view it as an
external change agent and catalyst that can provide a proven yet fresh
perspective to our colleagues who run school systems and health care
facilities. We in the business community are taking active steps to
achieve this end.
Congress created this opportunity in 1987 when Baldrige was signed
into law. With relatively little investment, it can stimulate the same
response in our two largest and most important sectors--education and
health care--which will enable school districts, higher educational
institutions, and health care organizations in all states and
communities to achieve performance excellence and to improve
continuously.
For all of these reasons, we strongly support the proposed
expansion to enable education and health care to take advantage of the
proven Baldrige infrastructure and act on the reality that improved
performance is not limited to business, but is important to all
organizations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
executive summary
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a strong
supporter of the Clinton Administration's overall emphasis on U.S.
infrastructure investment and civilian research and technology
development.
The Administration's fiscal year 1999 request of $715 million for
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)--an increase
of $42 million, or 6.3 percent, over fiscal year 1998 appropriations of
$673 million--is strong evidence of the President's commitment to this
issue. The proposed budget will fund the operation of NIST's civilian
technology support programs that focus on the U.S.'s technology
infrastructure. ASCE has long believed that the federal government
needs to take a more active role in civilian research and technology
development as a way to ultimately enhance the quality of the nation's
public works infrastructure, and to strengthen the international
competitiveness of the U.S. construction industry.
american society of civil engineers
ASCE, founded in 1852, is the oldest national engineering society
in the United States. Membership is held by more than 123,000
individual professional engineers, and is equally divided among
engineers in private practice; engineers working for Federal, state or
local governments; and those employed in research and academia. The
Society's major goals are to develop engineers who will improve
technology and apply it to further the objectives of society as a
whole, to promote the dedication and technical capability of its
members, and to advance the profession of civil engineering.
national institutes of standards and technology (nist)
ASCE strongly supports the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget
request of $715 million for NIST, including the $13.7 million for the
Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), $2.1 million for the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), $260 million for
the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and $107 million for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
ASCE supports coordinated and integrated basic and applied civil
engineering research which leverages federal R&D funds through
government-industry-university partnerships. These goals are currently
being addressed through programs at NIST.
ASCE recognizes that as the Administration and Congress struggle to
balance the budget, increased pressures will be placed on R&D budgets.
However, unless those cuts are carefully targeted, the flow of talent
and new technology in civil engineering and other technical disciplines
will be reduced.
the building and fire research laboratory (bfrl)
ASCE is a strong supporter of NIST's Building and Fire Research
Laboratory (BFRL) which is funded under the Measurement and Standards
Laboratories Program. The fiscal year 1999 budget request for the
Measurement and Standards Laboratories is $286.3 million. Of this
total, $13.7 million would fund the building research program.
ASCE believes that the services provided by the BFRL are invaluable
to the U.S. building industry. The major goals of the BFRL are to
improve the productivity of U.S. construction industries, and to reduce
human and economic losses resulting from fires, earthquakes, winds and
other hazards.
The BFRL also serves as the premier fire research laboratory in the
United States. It develops technologies to predict, measure and test
the performance of construction materials, components and practices.
NIST works closely with U.S. industries to integrate these new
technologies into new materials that are less flammable and new
products that reduce the consequences of unwanted fires.
Laboratory research activities include: fire science and fire
safety engineering; building materials; computer-integrated
construction practices; structural, mechanical, and environmental
engineering; and building economics. The laboratory conducts
investigations at the scene of major fires and structural failures due
to earthquakes, hurricanes or other causes. The knowledge gained from
these investigations guides research and is applied to recommendations
for design and construction practices to reduce future hazards.
Construction is one of the nation's largest industries, comparable
in size to the health care and agriculture industries. It serves as a
critical asset for enhancing the international competitiveness of U.S.
industry. Annually, more than $600 billion is spent in the U.S. on the
design, construction, maintenance, repair, and renovation of
constructed facilities, according to statistics from the U.S.
Department of Commerce. In 1996 alone, new construction totaled $569
billion, about 8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and
provided employment for 8 million people.
ASCE believes that there is a critical need for continued and
expanded U.S. construction and fire research. The construction industry
is in a process of technological change in materials, construction
methods and utilization of advanced computer-based technologies.
The need for expanded construction-related research is critical if
the United States is to reestablish a leadership position in the
construction industry. The private sector does not have the resources
to provide technological support, because of the fragmentation and
expense of the necessary testing facilities. The BFRL is superbly
qualified to provide research for the prediction, measurement and
testing of the performance of building materials, components, systems
and practices. These technical contributions are used in setting
standards and codes for design and construction. This research also
assists in removing barriers to beneficial innovations and maintains
essential levels of safety.
With the increasing age of our nation's facilities and the need to
rebuild our infrastructure systems, the role of the BFRL is--and will
continue to be--of paramount importance. Research efforts currently
underway will help highway engineers design reinforced concrete bridges
that will have longer lives. This could be of great economic importance
since hundreds of thousands of U.S. bridges are in need of repair,
rehabilitation or replacement.
The BFRL research activities continue to impact a variety of
infrastructure-related issues including: Structural Reliability;
Nondestructive Testing of Concrete; Structural Failure Investigations;
Seismic Design and Construction Standards; Rehabilitation Codes and
Standards; Corrosion Protection for Reinforcing Steel; Prediction of
the Service Lives of Building Materials; Quality of Construction
Materials Laboratory Testing; Roofing Standards; In-Place Testing of
Concrete; and, Computer Simulation of the Properties of Concrete and
Other Porous Materials.
ASCE strongly believes that the services provided by NIST's BFRL
are invaluable to the building industry, and should be adequately
funded. Only by working with the BFRL is the construction industry able
to leverage the funding and leadership necessary to remain competitive
in the global marketplace.
nist earthquake research
ASCE strongly supports the President's $2.1 million request in
fiscal year 1999 for NIST's activities under National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) (Public Law 103-25). Under this
program, NIST is responsible for ``research and development to improve
standards and practices for structures and lifelines.'' Lifelines are
critical public works and utilities, such as facilities for water
supply and sewage treatment, liquid fuel and gas pipelines, electrical
power and communications, and transportation.
The importance of developing technologies for industry and
government to reduce the Nation's vulnerability to severe losses of
life, property and economic activity from earthquakes, cannot be
overstated.
Earthquakes pose the greatest single-event natural hazard faced by
the Nation. A single earthquake and subsequent fires can affect
hundreds of thousands of square miles, kill tens of thousands of
people, cause property losses in the tens of billions of dollars, and
disrupt the social and economic functions of the affected areas and the
Nation. An earthquake the magnitude of the Loma Prieta earthquake of
1989--situated near a major urban center--would cause estimated losses
of $60 to $100 billion.
Unless actions are taken to reduce hazards nationwide, the
insurance industry estimates that property damage and loss from a
single large earthquake would be sufficient to seriously impact the
U.S. economy and national defense.
Earthquakes also inflict substantial economic damage that reduce
the Nation's ability to compete. The destruction of plant and equipment
has an enormous negative effect on U.S. competitiveness both for the
affected industries and the economy as a whole.
State and local governments and industry depend on NIST to provide
new technology for increased earthquake safety. Assurance of safety of
constructed facilities traditionally has been a state and local
government responsibility in the U.S. Government authorities and
industry depend on national voluntary consensus codes and standards as
a basis for safety standards and codes.
The central and predominant source of results underlying these
national codes and standards is NIST. Even private sector research
depends on the fundamental understanding, measurement technology, and
predictive methods developed by NIST. Therefore, advances in public
safety in the face of the threat of damaging earthquakes depends on
enhancement of the research efforts at NIST.
NIST has extraordinary laboratory and computational facilities for
structural performance investigations, modeling and testing. It also
has close working relationships with design professions, industry,
standards and model code organizations, and building regulatory
officials. NIST is uniquely suited to carry out an effective program of
research and delivery of new technologies to practice.
Nationally applicable practices for seismic safety of new and
existing buildings are being developed with funding from FEMA,
technical support from NIST and participation by the private sector.
One major project already underway is the ``NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.'' This project is a multi-year
effort to develop comprehensive guidelines for the seismic
rehabilitation of existing buildings. Because such guidelines do not
currently exist, the document will prove to be an extremely useful tool
to promote cost-effective rehabilitation of seismically vulnerable
structures. The research and development effort funded by NIST is
needed to formulate and apply effective practices for the seismic
safety of new and existing lifelines.
While earthquakes in the U.S. occur most frequently in states west
of the Rocky Mountains, 46 out of 50 states are known to have the
potential to experience moderate and severe earthquakes. One or more
such earthquakes have an even chance of occurring in the next decade.
Design studies of standards recommended for new buildings show that
preventing such damage adds less than two percent to new construction
cost; comparable benefits are expected for lifelines standards. The
proposed program will develop and implement design and construction
practices to reduce losses in new and existing lifelines. Experiences
in recent earthquakes show that losses can be reduced tenfold when new
facilities are properly constructed and hazardous existing facilities
are strengthened or replaced.
Lifelines are extremely vulnerable to damages in earthquakes.
However, nationally accepted standards for seismic safety are lacking
for most types of lifelines. Experts from private organizations with an
interest in lifelines have recommended to NIST a Plan for the
Developing and Adopting of Seismic Design and Construction Standards
for Lifelines. The American Society of Civil Engineers has proposed to
NIST the establishment of a Lifeline Seismic Safety Council to provide
a focal point for coordination of private and public sector efforts in
the development and adoption of seismic design and construction
standards for lifelines.
The development of advanced earthquake technologies will also be
transferred to international standards to increase U.S. competitiveness
in the growing international markets for earthquake hazard reduction
products and services. NIST will enter into cooperative research and
development agreements with individual companies and consortia to
enable industrial partners to gain experience with new earthquake
safety technologies, integrate these techniques into their new
commercial products and services development, and accelerate market
introduction for early advances in seismic safety and for leadership in
international competition.
measurements and standards for disaster mitigation
NIST also plays an important role in disaster mitigation.
Traditionally, federal disaster mitigation policies have focused on
minimizing loss of life and injuries. Today, with disaster costs
skyrocketing due to increasing population densities in high-risk
regions, disaster mitigation efforts are increasingly also
concentrating on minimizing the costs of natural disasters to U.S.
industry. Nationwide economic losses from recent natural disasters
alone average $1 billion per week, not including the indirect but
equally severe losses due to disruption of businesses and services
following such disasters.
ASCE strongly supports NIST's disaster mitigation program. In
fiscal year 1999, NIST is requesting an increase of $3 million to help
carry out the programs' goals. These resources will allow NIST to
develop measurements and standards that support next-generation
mitigation technologies.
An underlying priority of the program is to ``ensure that all new
infrastructure systems are designed and constructed using up-to-date
materials, equipment, processes; and system technologies for disaster
mitigation; and that existing infrastructure systems are retrofitted to
incorporate features that will mitigate natural disaster risks.''
The potential trade-off of developing these measurements and
standards for disaster mitigation are enormous. Ultimately, they will
minimize the costs of natural disasters to the U.S. economy. If NIST-
developed measurements and standards could reduce the costs of disaster
by just one percent, it would be feasible to save about $0.5 billion
per year in direct economic losses--losses that are absorbed largely by
U.S. commerce.
measurements and standards for international trade
International competition is an increasing threat to American
companies and projects. American firms have suffered not only a major
loss of international work to foreign firms, but also are experiencing
serious competition from foreign firms in domestic markets.
Construction research funding in competing countries is significantly
higher than that in the U.S.
The fact that over the past several decades the U.S. share of the
international construction market has declined precipitously, from
roughly 50 percent to 25 percent today, further underscores the
importance of coordinated and focused R&D in this key sector. Moreover,
because the U.S. construction industry is so fragmented, and many firms
are so small that they're unable to absorb the inherent risks and costs
of developing new technologies, the federal government and NIST must
assume a leadership role in developing technologies to advance the
industry.
In order to address these problems, NIST is requesting an
additional $4 million in fiscal year 1999 to ``create a comprehensive
approach to technical measurements and standards needed for
international trade and to promote the global use of U.S. standards and
measurements.''
This initiative will help U.S. industry overcome or avoid technical
barriers to trade in major developing markets by promoting the use of
U.S. technology and practices in international standards and designing
and implementing mutually recognized conformance assessment programs.
In addition, U.S. export growth currently lags behind that of many
other countries. Statistics show that world trade has been increasing
15 percent annually while U.S. exports are rising at only about nine
percent per year. Removing such technical barriers will open export
opportunities for U.S. industry that are worth tens of billions of
dollars and are the source of thousands of potential jobs.
advanced technology program (atp)
Under the President's proposal, the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) would receive $260 million in fiscal year 1999, a $68 million, or
35 percent, increase over its current level of $192 million. ASCE
supports the $260 million request for the ATP. The ATP provides cost-
shared funding to industry for high-risk research and development
projects that have the potential to produce broad-based economic
benefits for the U.S. To date, ATP has funded 352 projects with 842
participants, for a combined investment of $2.3 billion shared almost
equally between industry and government.
Companies in every manufacturing industry face the challenge of
responding rapidly to changing markets and evolving business
opportunities. Today, the speed at which new products are developed and
delivered to market often is the underlying determinant of competitive
success. High quality products, more reliable and more flexible
processes, fewer rejected parts, speedier product development, more
efficient market transactions, higher levels of interoperability among
machines and factories are but a few of the practical advantages that
U.S. companies realize from the NIST laboratories' research, services
and standards-related activities.
The ATP program in Manufacturing Composite Structures was
established to assist U.S. companies develop the technical ability for
producing vast amounts of affordable, high-performance composites for
large-scale commercial applications. Advances in composite technology
have allowed industry to produce materials that outperform traditional
materials such as steel while reducing weight, maintenance expenses,
and operating costs of cars, bridges and other structures.
The ability to produce commercial quantities of high performance
composites at competitive prices will open new markets in the range of
tens of billions of dollars to U.S. companies, according to industry
projections. Auto manufacturers alone project that composites orders
for building lighter weight vehicles that consume less fuel could go as
high as $20 billion.
Contrary to claims made by critics that the ATP benefits only large
multinational corporations, ATP works to help companies of all sizes.
For smaller, start-up companies, early support from the ATP can mean
the difference between success and failure. To date, nearly half (46
percent) of the ATP awards have gone to individual small businesses or
to joint ventures led by a small business.
According to a December 1997 survey released by the Commerce
Department, ATP has enabled significant technological breakthroughs,
rather than incremental advances, and that industry is actively
pursuing commercialization of ATP-sponsored technologies. The study
also found that 39 percent of the organizations believe they would not
have started the ATP-assisted technology project without ATP funding.
manufacturing extension partnership (mep)
ASCE supports the $107 million request for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP). These funds support the network of locally
operated and NIST co-funded extension centers which provide hands-on
technology assistance to the nation's 381,000 small and medium-sized
businesses. This program has worked to strengthen the competitiveness
of U.S. manufacturing firms by helping them adopt new technologies.
Typical MEP services include: assisting small manufacturers access
information on new equipment, reducing costs by lowering waste,
improving quality, expanding markets for products, and locating
financing for modernization efforts.
conclusion
To reiterate, ASCE strongly supports the Administration's proposed
$715 million budget for NIST in fiscal year 1999. This vital research
and technology development, coupled with the indispensable standards
work, can be applied to the nation's infrastructure where it will
enhance public health and safety and improve U.S. global
competitiveness.
Federal leadership is essential to targeting civil engineering
research. Without adequate federal funding, the ability to maximize the
leveraging of R&D funds through government-industry-university
partnerships would not be possible.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of America's Public Television
Stations
This testimony is submitted to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary on behalf
of The Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS),
which represents the 179 local public television licensees that reach
99 percent of American television households, over the air, through a
public broadcasting system that is in place and working now.
APTS is requesting that the subcommittee fund the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) at $56.25 million for
fiscal year 1999. APTS recognizes that this is a significant increase
over the fiscal year 1998 funding level and the President's fiscal year
1999 budget request. This request is year one of a four-year package to
assist public broadcasting stations in the conversion to digital.
Public television is facing a daunting challenge: the transition to
digital broadcast. This transition is mandatory for all television
broadcasters and the Federal Communications Commission has laid out an
aggressive timetable that requires the conversion to be completed by
2003.
Public broadcasters estimate that the costs associated with the
conversion will total $1.7 billion for the system. Unlike commercial
broadcasters, public broadcasters are nonprofit or state or local
government entities that rely on a grassroots funding structure. Public
broadcasting's support comes from a combination of federal and non-
federal sources including individual viewers and listeners, foundations
and businesses, colleges and universities and state and local
governments.
Because of their nonprofit status and grassroots funding structure,
stations are constrained in their ability to finance such a major
capital expenditure. Unlike their commercial counterparts, public
stations are unable to pass along their costs to their customers. Most
public broadcast stations cannot take out capital loans, and many, by
law, must have balanced budgets on an annual basis and may not maintain
cash reserves. Given these constraints, stations cannot utilize the
typical mechanisms available to commercial entities to fund a major
capital expenditure.
Congress has a long and significant history in helping public
broadcasting fund capital investments. The Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP) housed at the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), has helped fund the equipment needs
of public radio and television stations for over 36 years. In addition,
between 1991 and 1993 Congress appropriated funds for the Public
Broadcasting Satellite Interconnection Fund that funded the cost of the
satellite and the necessary equipment at the local stations to receive
the satellite signal.
An additional federal investment is critical to ensure that all
citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications
services through digital technology. The clarity of high definition and
the multicasting capability of digital technology will allow public
television to enhance the educational value of its programming and to
multiply educational services. With digital, public television can
serve more diverse, unserved and underserved audiences on a single
channel.
This federal support will enable public broadcasting to continue to
serve the nation and maintain its core principles. They are:
noncommercial character and educational mission; creation and delivery
of programming of unequaled quality and excellence; editorial integrity
and independence; PTV's adaptation of new technologies to educational
and public service purposes; universal access to our services; and
local ownership, control and focus of public television stations.
The goal of each local station is to serve its community. Stations
are governed by boards composed of people who live and have a personal
investment in their community; decisions are made at the local level to
determine the special needs of that community. Public broadcasting is
the only broadcasting entity that is totally committed to ensuring that
all Americans have access to free, locally based, enriching programs
and education services in the digital age.
Public broadcasters have always been leaders in making use of new
technologies for public service. We invented closed captioning and
descriptive video services and pioneered satellite delivery of
broadcast television. Public broadcasters once again have a vision of
what new technology can deliver. We look forward to developing further
applications of new technology to educate and enlighten all Americans.
We will provide these services through these new digital
technologies:
--High Definition Television (HDTV) will significantly enhance the
beauty and detail of public broadcasting's signature
programming in science and nature, performing arts, science,
drama and travel.
--Multicasting will enable public broadcasting to extend the reach of
its educational services by enabling stations to broadcast four
or more separate but simultaneous program streams. Potential
channels might include: a preschool Ready to Learn service; K-
12 instructional programming; GED and college credit
telecourse; workforce training; local public affairs; or the
popular how-to shows.
--The DTV signal will give public television the ability to transmit
computer information and data over-the-air, providing another
powerful tool for public television stations to expand their
educational missions. Stations will have the capacity to
deliver course-related materials to teachers and students,
program guide information, and selected portions of the World
Wide Web over-the-air to homes and schools. End users will be
able to download this information instantaneously, using a set
top converter, computer or a digital television receiver.
Highlighted below are some of our current services that can be
enhanced in the digital age. Public television will be able to
multicast more quality programs simultaneously with information and
data available to download immediately. Quality science and technical
programs will have the advantages of film quality through high
definition television.
Public television stations work directly with local schools. They
broadcast an average of five and a half hours per day of instructional
programming for classroom use, enabling 2 million teachers to use
quality instructional programming to reach 30 million students in
63,000 K-12 schools. Local stations broadcast overnight so that
teachers can record and build a library of programs. Stations encourage
this and many publish special guides for teachers as well as
supplementary materials to facilitate the use of public television
programs in the classroom. Public television stations work with
teachers to enable them to use video most effectively; we also offer
access to program information on the World Wide Web.
Our children's educational programming remains the first choice of
children, parents and teachers. Research does prove that children
raised on ``Sesame Street'' and other public television programs
perform better in school. The Ready to Learn project undertaken by
public television is centered around a daytime block of children's
programming but local stations have expanded the value of these
programs by providing outreach services to children and their parents
and caregivers to help them use public television as an effective
learning tool. Over 450 workshops for parents and caregivers and
benefiting over 70,000 children have been sponsored by local stations.
GED ON TV is an excellent example of what public television does
best. Produced by the Kentucky Network and currently offered by 54
percent of public television stations, GED ON TV has enabled nearly 2
million adults to acquire a high school equivalency certificate. Recent
figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that citizens with
high school diploma or equivalency contribute an additional $4,980 per
year to their state's economy than do high school dropouts. That's
almost $10 billion added to our nation's economy annually. Multiply
that by the 30 or more years American's spend in the workforce.
The Rhode Island network has launched RInet36, that will provide a
high speed Internet connection to all teachers and classrooms in the
state at no cost to them. The project teams the station, the state
department of education, a private university, and the U.S. Department
of Commerce and a private donor in funding the program. RInet36 can
save the schools up to $1.4 million over the first two years.
Electronic field trips, produced by Kentucky Education Television
have enabled an average of 550 classrooms across the state to visit
Mammoth Cave, a working horse farm, a newspaper and an underground
Kentucky coal mine. Other electronic field trips produced by public
television have taken students to such diverse sites as the South Pole
and Colonial Williamsburg.
Two thousand colleges and universities are using public
television's Adult Learning Service (ALS). Local public television
stations enable 400,000 tuition-paying students a chance to earn a
college degree through television. In the last 15 years, over 3.5
million adults have participated in public television's ALS. These
generally older students often live off campus, are employed and have
adult responsibilities. Public television helps them move ahead by
making a college degree accessible.
In Texas, by working in close alliance with the Texas A&M
administration, KAMU has carved out a prominent role as the
university's resource for extending distance learning. KAMU operates
the TRANS-TEXAS Video Conference Network, which provides two-way video,
data and Internet services to 100 locations in 40 cities across the
state. Last year, KAMU provided 180 university courses and 5,200 video
conferences. Public broadcasting has many more hours of educational
programming and services than it has air time. Today, if we're
broadcasting a children's program, then we're not airing workforce
training or a college telecourse. The digital age will enable local
public television stations to share more of our wealth of educational
and cultural resources--with every American--than ever before.
Congress has mandated the conversion to digital and the Federal
Communications Commission has set a deadline of 2003 for public
television stations to broadcast in the digital format. Digital
technology is not a frill; it's a technological imperative. Since the
FCC is requiring all television stations to convert to digital
programming by 2003, public broadcasters are obliged to make
unprecedented investments in new transmission and production equipment.
Public broadcasters simply will not be able to make the transition
without federal support. Almost half of all public television licensees
(86 out of 177) will incur transition costs that alone exceed their
projected annual revenues. Federal funds provide the critical seed
money that stimulates private contributions.
We are pleased that the administration has established a Public
Broadcasting Digital Transition Fund in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request to Congress. That request is for $450 million over five years.
Seventy-five million of this amount would be administered through the
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP.)
Public broadcasting, however, estimates the cost associated with
the digital transition will exceed $1.7 billion. We are asking the
federal government for $600 million of that amount. The majority of the
funding would come through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB). The PTFP program should supplement the CPB and provide
additional funding to meet the needs of rural or hardship sole-service
stations and to meet the continuing analog equipment needs of public
television and radio stations.
Public broadcasting will raise the rest of the necessary funds,
roughly one billion dollars, from other sources: individual
contributions, corporate underwriting, state funding, foundation
grants, and through new efficiencies and cost savings. The
noncommercial nature of public broadcasting makes raising these funds
from private sources even more challenging than for the commercial
networks, and thus requires a public investment to meet the new
technological standard.
For a one-time charge of $2.24 per American--about the cost of a
video rental--every viewer will gain a lifetime of unlimited access to
public broadcasting's enriched and expanded programs and education
services in the digital era. That's a high value for a relatively low
cost. The alternative--a future of 500 digital channels with no safe
harbor of noncommercial educational channels--puts this investment into
perspective. At a time when the education needs of this nation are so
great, it should be one of the government's highest priorities.
Public television stations are already exploring the challenges and
opportunities of digital transition to achieve efficiencies and cost
savings. Many stations are participating in CPB's Future Fund projects
to experiment, on a micro basis, with the activities that all of public
broadcasting may have to undertake in the digital future. The
transition to digital gives public broadcasting an opportunity to
undertake collaborative activities that will yield a more efficient
broadcasting operation while reducing costs. Some Future Fund projects
are listed below. The results of these projects are applicable across
public broadcasting and bear watching.
Five Star Network.--Five southern state networks--Arkansas,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia and Alabama--are developing working
teams to examine possible collaborations and to develop closer
communication links. Areas examined include production, underwriting,
technical operations and DTV conversion among others.
Northern Indiana Collaborative.--Three stations, WYIN, WNIT, and
WFWA examine areas of collaboration, including an engineering service
bureau, regional underwriting and joint planned giving initiative.
National Underwriting Cooperative.--Feasibility study is funded to
examine cooperative underwriting sales among major producing stations
and PBS. KCET, WGBH, WETA, WNET join with PBS to develop a uniform
approach to corporations and agencies for production underwriting. In
its second phase, the project calls for an implementation of a business
plan calling for single approach to major sponsors of public television
programming. A new organization was created--the PBS Sponsorship Sales
Group--to provide a unified approach to potential national
underwriters, provide marketing materials and appropriate sales
training for staff.
Centralized Programming and Traffic Consolidation Service Florida
Public Broadcasting Service.--The Florida public television licensees
have implemented a multi-phase effort to consolidate services and
functions for 12-14 stations. Through these efforts the stations expect
to significantly reduce operating expenses, increase the utilization of
their technical and production resources, enhance revenue opportunities
from existing production capacity, and deploy staff resources to
increase operating productivity. They have created a centralized
programming office and staffed it with a chief program executive. They
are also developing a statewide program guide and a plan to optimize
studio and post-production resources to further reduce the operating
costs.
New England Public Television Development Cooperative WGBH/Boston,
WGBY/Springfield, Vermont Public Television & New Hampshire Public
Television.--The state networks in Vermont and New Hampshire, along
with WGBH and WGBY in Massachusetts, will form a regional development
cooperative to increase membership and fundraising income
opportunities, while reducing their collective costs in this area.
Statewide Development and Fundraising Cooperative Illinois Public
Broadcasting Commission.--Nine public television and thirteen public
radio stations in Illinois plan to form a statewide underwriting
agency, and to explore various areas of shared service and fundraising
opportunities.
conclusion
You have made a very wise investment in public broadcasting. You
have helped us improve millions of Americans lives every day. We hope
that you will continue this support in assisting the industry into the
digital age.
Thank you. On behalf of the nation's public television stations, we
look forward to working with you to ensure that we have the financial
resources to continue to provide the American people free access to
quality, noncommercial educational television.
______
Prepared Statement of National Public Radio
On behalf of National Public Radio (NPR) and the more than 590
public radio stations it represents, I respectfully submit this
statement for the hearing record on the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). The public
broadcasting community urges you to support a $56.25 million PTFP
funding level to fulfill the program's traditional role as well as to
help us meet the challenges the transition and conversion to digital
broadcasting funding will create.
NPR is a private, non-profit corporation. It is a producer and
distributor of award-winning programming such as ``Morning Edition,''
``All Things Considered,'' ``Performance Today,'' ``Car Talk,'' ``Jazz
Profiles,'' and ``Talk of the Nation.'' NPR is also a membership
organization comprised of noncommercial, educational radio stations.
Each member station is locally controlled and designs its own format--
combining local programming with offerings from NPR and other
programming sources. Each station's local format is crafted to provide
the best service for the local community. Forty-eight percent of the
programming that airs on NPR stations is locally produced.
NPR stations are independent and autonomous, licensed to a variety
of non-profit organizations, communities, colleges, universities and
other institutions. The majority of NPR member stations are licensed to
educational institutions.
The PTFP program is a matching grants program for public radio and
television stations throughout America. These grants help public
broadcasters purchase equipment to extend their signals to unserved
areas as well as to replace or upgrade outdated hardware such as
transmitters, master control rooms, or towers. The program is a model
of a successful and efficient public and private partnership since each
grant requires a local match of up to 50 percent leveraged from a
station's community. PTFP grants act as an incentive that allows
stations to generate the required match from listeners and other donors
who might otherwise be reluctant to cover the costs of an entire
project. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), which is a part of the Commerce Department, administers PTFP.
ptfp's significant role in public broadcasting's digital future
The PTFP program will play a significant and expanded role in
public broadcasting's future. In a recent NPR survey \1\, 76 percent of
public radio stations plan to utilize the program in the next five
years for equipment upgrades or extending its programming service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NPR equipment needs survey conducted in December 1997. A total
of 58 stations responded to the equipment needs survey. 50 NPR member
stations responded (representing 18 percent of NPR stations), while 8
associate stations responded (representing 3 percent of NPR associate
stations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The program will continue to carry out its traditional objectives
of replacing obsolete and malfunctioning equipment and extending public
radio's signal into underserved areas. In addition, public broadcasting
stations will soon look to PTFP to help absorb the costs associated
with digital broadcasting.
President Clinton's fiscal year 1999 budget recognizes the
importance of funding public broadcasting's digital future. Although
NPR is appreciative of the Administration's support, the budget does
not contain enough money to meet the needs of the program's expanded
role. The budget proposal provides PTFP--titled the ``Public
Telecommunications Facilities and Digital Broadcasting Applications
Program''--with $15 million per year for five years for the digital
transition, totaling $75 million. A $15 million funding level is
insufficient for public radio and television's current analog needs and
the transition to digital technology.
There is currently no digital radio transmission standard in the
United States. Stations are anxious to convert their studio equipment
to digital in anticipation of the impending digital conversion. The
delay for digital radio transmission in this country is due to the lack
of vacant spectrum to allocate for new digital radio services. U.S.
broadcasters are busy developing a transmission technology that works
in the existing AM and FM radio bands, hence, the name in-band on
channel or ``IBOC''. In Canada and Europe, broadcasters are moving
forward with a different digital radio transmission technology. Digital
broadcasting will allow public radio to do more and better programming.
Cost estimates, using an IBOC solution, are $150,000 per station.
In addition, public radio stations are currently converting their
production facilities to digital because analog equipment and parts are
being phased out in the radio industry. Digitizing stations increases
operational efficiency and decreases operating costs. In fact, 58
percent of stations that responded to equipment needs survey conducted
by NPR have implemented some form of digital technology. For instance,
KUT-FM in Austin, Texas has several digital equipment pieces. In 1995,
the station was awarded a $70,550 PTFP grant to replace its worn-out
transmitter system and its associated studio-to-transmitter link. This
equipment delivers a program audio signal to a transmitter site. Since
much of the station's programming was digitally produced, it made sense
to replace the aging studio-to-transmitter equipment with a digital
link. This digital equipment produces a clean, quality sound not
possible with analog equipment.
New Hampshire Public Radio is also converting its production
facilities to digital as well. The station currently has a digital
control board for master control, digital editing equipment and digital
studio-to-transmitter link. For instance, the digital control board is
a mixing console that allows the station to electronically combine a
number of different programming sources to create one seamless,
programming stream. Public broadcasting will continue to rely upon this
successful public and private partnership to keep pace with today's
latest technology which will become tomorrow's standard operating
equipment.
PTFP grants are particularly important to public radio during
public television's transition to digital television (DTV). Congress'
mandate to convert television stations to DTV may result in many radio
stations currently co-located on a television tower to have to move
from these leased towers. DTV technology requires that more
transmission equipment be placed on towers, creating a weight and load
problem. Thus, these public radio stations would have to build new
towers, an expensive prospect. Or, if space is available, a dislocated
public radio station would have to move to another tower and may incur
interference problems. There are also other significant costs
associated with the transition to DTV. For instance, there is a
possibility of greater interference involving adjacent television and
reserved FM band stations. PTFP matching grants can help ease the
severity of these expensive disruptions.
Beginning next year, PTFP will take on this expanded role. A $56.25
million PTFP appropriation, therefore, is necessary to help public
broadcasters in both an analog and digital capacity.
ptfp is a vital component of public broadcasting
PTFP is the only capital improvements program available to public
broadcasting. The program is particularly important because public
broadcasters lack access to capital. Public radio stations operate on
``shoe-string'' budgets funded primarily through charitable
contributions and government funding. Whatever extra money is available
is reinvested in the production or acquisition of additional high-
quality programming or, sometimes, small capital budgets. As non-profit
entities, stations cannot rely upon later profits to recoup capital
expenditures. Thus, they would have serious difficulties finding a
lending institution that would provide financing for equipment
replacement. This is particularly true in many rural areas where other
small businesses experience great difficulty obtaining financing.
Stations' relatively small budgets do not afford them the luxury of
paying for big ticket items such as a transmission system, which is
likely to cost $380,000 according to the PTFP guidelines. The average
public radio operating budget, before federal funding, is $905,667.
Thus, without the federal matching grant, public radio stations could
never afford a piece of equipment that is a third of their operating
budgets.
In addition, matching federal money is crucial since there are
fewer non-federal resources available to public broadcasting stations
for capital improvement projects. Public broadcasters are under more
pressure to finance the production and the acquisition of quality
local, regional and national programming because the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) appropriation is at its lowest level in
several years (the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 levels are $250 million).
Thus, stations must seek additional money from local communities just
to maintain the level of service provided in the past. These
programming costs leave little money for crucial capital improvement
efforts. Sustaining the public broadcasting system is a primary goal of
PTFP and the replacement of aging, obsolete equipment is a critical
concern for stations, but not at the expense of programming. Without
proper maintenance and upgrades, eventually the infrastructure falls
into disrepair. Public broadcasters continue to rely on the NTIA
program for the replacement of equipment.
It should be noted that public radio stations generally replace
their existing equipment several years after the normal life-span of a
particular equipment piece. For example, the average life span of a
main transmitter is 12-15 years. According to NPR's survey results,
stations, on average, are not replacing transmitters until 4-7 years
after this average life span. This observation is also true for
production studios. Public radio stations are replacing their
production studios on average, every 13 years. Yet, the average life
span of a studio is usually 7 years. For example, in 1996 KSUT-FM in
Ignacio, Colorado was awarded $73,626 to replace a 20-year-old master
control and studio equipment. PTFP, due to the nature of its local and
national partnership, discourages frivolous grant applications because
each station must leverage half the cost of a project from its
community.
Stations also may use PTFP grants for emergency purposes. For
instance, KBRW-AM in Barrow, Alaska was awarded $78,262 to be used
towards the replacement of the station's transmission system which was
completely destroyed by fire on October 16, 1996. The money also will
help purchase an automated fire suppression system. The station
provides the only radio service on the North Slope which covers 88,000
square miles, or an area the size Minnesota.
Other examples include KHSU-FM in Arcata, California which was
damaged by a severe winter storm in 1994. The station was awarded a
$14,975 emergency grant to replace its aging transmission antenna and
to reconstruct a translator in Willow. The translator was destroyed,
leaving the community of Willow without service. If not for this PTFP
grant, both communities would have experienced significant periods
without the station's service. Since replacing the antenna and
translator, KHSU-FM's service has been reliable, even during the winter
months. In 1993, WDNA-FM in Miami, Florida received a grant to replace
an antenna, studio-to-transmitter link and a transmission line
destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. These emergency PTFP grants are vital to
maintain public broadcasting service to these local communities,
particularly in areas that have limited, or in some places, no other
source of informational and cultural programming.
Public radio signals currently reach about 91 percent of the U.S.
population. The PTFP program helps public radio continue its expansion
into unserved or underserved areas. PTFP benefits both rural and urban
states where topography, sheer size of the state or other interference
problems such as buildings and other broadcast signals make it
difficult for communities to receive public radio programming. In
fiscal year 1997, 17 PTFP grants were provided to public broadcasting
stations to help them reach unserved and underserved areas. For
example, a fiscal year 1997 PTFP grant was awarded to activate a new
public radio station on 88.7 MHz in Mountain Home, Arkansas. The
station will repeat the signal of KASU-FM, but will also have some
local programming production capability. This new station will provide
first service to 107,422 people and additional service to about 23,965
people. For fiscal year 1997, the Southern New Mexico Radio Foundation
in Almogordo, New Mexico was awarded $130,877 to activate a new
noncommercial educational FM station in Alamogordo which will provide
the first local programming to about 54,700 people. Also, WKMS in
Murray, Kentucky received a $25,335 PTFP grant that will extend the
station's signal by activating translators in Paducah, Kentucky and in
Paris, Tennessee. The new translators will deliver the first public
radio signal to about 43,213 persons. WKMS currently serves an
estimated 278,000 persons from its existing facilities.
In fiscal year 1996, 22 grants were awarded to provide the first
public broadcasting service to local communities. For example, WZRU-FM
in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina was awarded $87,075 to provide the
first public radio service and the first radio reading service for the
blind to approximately 46,000 residents of northeast North Carolina and
southeast Virginia. Also, WVPN-FM in Charleston, West Virginia received
$7,560 to provide the first public radio service to about 17,000 people
in the rural communities of Logan and Bluefield, West Virginia. WVPN-FM
installed a translator in Logan, operating on 91.9 MHz., and all the
necessary satellite equipment.
Radio is portable and affordable. This equipment replacement is
important because it maintains the existing infrastructure that allows
public radio to produce and broadcast programming. This programming is
a valuable source of information and entertainment for millions of
Americans. Radio listening in cars and trucks is where many people
receive a substantial amount of their news and information. This is
especially true in rural areas because the automobile is the most
common mode of transportation. Often, there is a lack of public
transportation and people must drive to work, to buy groceries and to
see a movie.
Radio is also inexpensive. A radio may cost $50 or less, far less
than the cost of a computer, making public radio programming easily
accessible and affordable to almost every American. It simply does not
make good business sense to allow the public broadcasting
infrastructure, which represents a 25 year federal investment, to
crumble. Without PTFP, listeners would experience frequent disruptions
due to equipment failure.
If you measure the popularity and utility of the PTFP program by
the number of stations requesting funding, then PTFP is crucial. In a
preliminary count, over 239 applications have been received by NTIA for
fiscal year 1998 PTFP funding, totaling an estimated $117 million, more
than five times the amount of money available ($21 million is slated
for 1998 grants). In fiscal year 1997, public broadcasting stations and
other telecommunications entities submitted 220 applications totaling
nearly $50 million. Meanwhile, 97 grants were awarded totaling $14.2
million (the PTFP appropriation was $15.25 million). In fiscal year
1996, 251 applications were received. The total amount of funds
requested by the applications was $54.9 million. PTFP awarded 96 grants
totaling approximately $13.4 million.
public broadcasting's accomplishments through ptfp
Public broadcasting has accomplished much through PTFP. This
matching grants program helped build the infrastructure necessary to
deliver unique, quality educational, informational and cultural
programming that many Americans rely upon. In fact, the program has
financed over $500 million in public telecommunications facilities.
This represents a significant investment in communities as diverse as
Kilauea, Hawaii; Berlin, New Hampshire; and Charleston, South Carolina.
PTFP has helped stations put in place the necessary infrastructure to
provide signals to more listeners. In turn, this has enabled stations
to reach a greater audience and to increase the opportunity for more of
a financial stake in the station by private individuals and
corporations.
The investment in the public broadcasting infrastructure should not
be allowed to deteriorate. As America moves into the digital age, PTFP
should help maintain this solid public broadcasting foundation as well
as build upon it.
Thank you for your past support for PTFP. I appreciate your
consideration of a $56.25 million appropriation request for PTFP in
fiscal year 1999.
______
Prepared Statement of Glenn A. Grant, Esq., Business Administrator,
City of Newark, NJ
Thank you for the opportunity to present information to you about
economic development opportunities in Newark, New Jersey. Newark is at
the heart of the vast metropolis that extends from Boston to the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Fully one-quarter of the population
of the country either lives within, or is easily accessible to, this
area. We are only eight miles west of New York City, within 100 miles
of Philadelphia, and only a four hour drive or one hour flight away
from Boston and Washington. Our location is enhanced by ready access to
transportation connections via rail, sea, air, and nine major
interstates and state highways. Port Newark/Port Elizabeth has become
the largest container port on the east coat because of the ability to
move goods quickly and economically to and from the area. Newark
Airport is the ninth-largest airport in the U.S., and is one of the
fastest growing in the country.
Despite our active port and airport facilities, fully-occupied new
office buildings, successful New Jersey Performing Arts Center, and
complex of institutions of higher education and hospitals, our
unemployment rate continues to hover around a staggering 15 percent. We
are the fifth-most densely populated city in the nation, where the mean
family income is only barely above the poverty line. Our population is
poor: the 1990 Census showed an aggregate poverty rate of 26 percent,
and an incredible 37 percent of our children live below the poverty
line. A full 50 percent of the children in our public schools are from
families receiving AFDC. Jobs for the parents of those children will
positively affect this population more than any other factor.
We have lost may of the jobs that match the skills and work
experience of a large segment of our population. We know, however, that
the jobs created through the transportation industry cross the whole
spectrum of employment opportunities. With the decline of our
manufacturing base, shipping, warehousing, and related blue-collar
employment are essentially the only good paying jobs left in the area
which do not require higher education. Further, the thousands of white-
collar jobs in such varied industries fuel the economy of the City,
both directly and through the second support industries they, in turn,
sustain. The growth of the hotel and hospitality industry is another
key segment in the production of job opportunities for Newark
residents.
It is a goal of the administration of Mayor Sharpe James to create
jobs to meet the range of needs of Newark's residents, and we ask for
the Federal government's partnership in continuing to expand the number
of these vital employment and investment opportunities. Newark has been
designated a Federal Enterprise Community, and the projects which
Newark is presenting to you for funding consideration all lie within
this zone, and are designated to provide employment for its residents.
The City of Newark is proposing projects at two important sites in
close proximity to Newark International Airport. Directly across U.S.
Route 1 from the airport, is an underutilized abandoned rail yard of
slightly over 100 acres known as Waverly Roads. The Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey operates the first phase of an airport
monorail, and has begun construction of the second phase, which will
cross U.S. Route 1 and connect to a new stop on the Northeast Corridor
rail line within Waverly Yards. The completion of this monorail will
provide a direct, fast rail linkage with downtown Newark, and all of
its rail and bus connections. The City of Newark now owns much of this
property, and wishes to promote development of it to its full
potential. To do so, several infrastructure improvements must be
accomplished.
First, there is currently only one road leading into the site.
Right-of-way acquisition through property owned by existing businesses
and roadway construction are necessary for appropriate accessibility.
Secondly, some of the area will require environmental remediation
before facility construction can take place. In addition, basic site
services, such as power, water and communication lines, need to be
brought into the location. Site clearance and acquisition of several
parcels from private owners will complete a building site of
unparalleled attractiveness.
The City proposes to make the site available for the development of
facilities which would make the best use of the proximity to the
airport and the direct rail link, such as a hotel, conference center,
and office park. Private developers will have the opportunity to
purchase or lease a portion of the property for construction of primary
or complementary facilities. It has been estimated that activity on
this site will ultimately generate hundreds of jobs in the trade,
hospitality, convention and transportation industries. Further, the
City of Newark is pursuing the establishment of an International Trade
Center, which is currently in a study and preliminary design phase. The
site for this facility has not yet been determined, but it is projected
to be in a location which will also take advantage of the
transportation links described. We are requesting that this
Subcommittee make an appropriation of $6,000,000 to help us reach our
long-range goals for the Waverly Yards; to enable the generation of job
and economic development opportunities for Newark's residents, and
create needed enhancements to a regional transportation center.
Only a mile away from Waverly Yards lies an area in need of
redevelopment which could have a tremendous impact on the economic
well-being of our City. There is an inventory of dozens of factory and
warehouse buildings which have become underutilized, even abandoned.
Some of them are city-owned as a result of tax foreclosures, many
others have simply been closed by their owners. Thousands of
manufacturing and shipping jobs have been lost in the Frelinghuysen
Avenue industrial corridor. Yet Port Newark and the airport generate
millions of dollars in the businesses of processing, packing, and
distribution. Conversely, Newark is home to a large exporting
community, which makes use of our key position on the transportation
network.
The City is proposing a project which would provide supplemental
funds to retrofit underutilized buildings to enable them to be reused
by these industries. An appropriation of $3,000,000 to launch a pilot
program would allow us to begin a process of returning these facilities
to the tax rolls, and returning our populations to work. The additional
jobs that would be generated in the distribution industry will serve to
create family incomes, which will in turn create retain detail, in
Newark. The plentiful and competitively priced labor force within the
City in general, and our Enterprise Community in particular, will
provide a ready supply of employees for operations in the types of
industries we need to keep and expand.
Newark is also home to five institutions of higher learning,
ranging from a fine community college to two law schools and a medical
school. This complex also is a part of our Enterprise Community. Along
with a public/private partnership of government and business, they have
begun to develop University Heights Science Park, with a high-tech
business incubator, day care center, and lab space already operational.
A federal allocation of $9,000,000 would be utilized to leverage
approximately $130 million in private and non-federal public sector
funds to begin and complete the next project phase; an International
Center for Public Health. This Center would be a world-class infectious
disease research and treatment complex comprised of the Public Health
Research Institute and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey's National Tuberculosis Center. EDA funding would be applied
toward construction-related costs, which will create approximately 300
direct and indirect construction and technology jobs.
We are asking for your help in changing the situation in Newark.
Through the allocation of funding for the projects I have described,
you will create long-term economic opportunity for people who currently
have none. Through these economic development initiatives, you will
help some of Newark's currently unemployed population to earn a decent
salary and support their families.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is
the largest health sciences university in the nation and the only one
designated as a statewide system for health care. UMDNJ comprises seven
schools on five academic campuses in Camden, New Brunswick/Piscataway,
Newark, Scotch Plains and Stratford. We own and operate UMDNJ-
University Hospital in Newark, the primary teaching hospital of the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School and home to New Jersey's Level One
Trauma Center. UMDNJ also comprises three core primary teaching
hospitals, five health care facilities, an integrated behavioral health
delivery system, and has affiliations with more than 100 health care
and educational institutions statewide.
It is with great pleasure and pride that UMDNJ submits testimony to
the Senate Commerce, Justice, State Subcommittee on Appropriations to
respectfully request your support for an initiative of national
importance and significance: the International Center for Public Health
at University Heights Science Park, Newark.
The International Center for Public Health (ICPH) is a strategic
development initiative that will create a world-class public health
complex at University Heights Science Park (UHSP) in Newark. UHSP is a
joint venture between Newark's four institutions of higher education,
the City of Newark and private industry to harness science and
technology research as a force for urban and regional economic
development. The Public Health Research Institute (PHRI), a nationally
prestigious biomedical research institute, will re-locate from New York
City to become the core tenant at the ICPH with UMDNJ as the primary
medical center linkage and academic affiliation.
The International Center for Public Health is a strategic
initiative that will create a world class, infectious disease research
and treatment complex in University Heights Science Park, Newark, a
Federal Enterprise Community neighborhood. The ICPH will have
substantial local, regional, national and international impact as it
addresses many critical social, economic, political and health-related
issues. The Center is a $78 million anchor project that will launch the
second phase of the fifty-acre, $350 million mixed-use urban
redevelopment Science Park. The construction of ICPH will generate
1,500 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs. The project
scope also includes the consolidation and preparation of three adjacent
building pads that will be simultaneously marketed to private
biotechnology corporations. These pads will leverage an additional $60
million of construction (for a total of $138 million), and another
1,500 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs (for a total
of 3,000). The ICPH anchor facility will total 161,600 square feet and
house three tenants: the Public Health Research Institute (PHRI), the
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's (UMDNJ) National
Tuberculosis Center, one of three Federally funded TB centers, and the
UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School's Department of Microbiology and
Molecular Genetics. Development of the ICPH is a priority project for
UMDNJ, Rutgers-The State University, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Essex County College and the City of Newark.
The core private tenant for the International Center is the Public
Health Research Institute, which will relocate from New York City. PHRI
is an internationally prestigious, 56-year-old biomedical research
institute that conducts a broad range of infectious disease and public
health research. A major PHRI research focus is the study of antibiotic
resistance to life threatening bacterial organisms, and the development
of new antibiotics. Among its many accomplishments over the years, PHRI
has contributed to the development of smallpox vaccine, developed a new
diagnostic assay for influenza, conducted early experiments on
oncogenes, cloned the gene responsible for toxic shock syndrome, and
identified the multi-drug resistant TB strain ``W''. PHRI's current
research focuses on molecular pathogenicity, drug discovery, drug
resistance, diagnostic and vaccine development, and gene expression.
Scientific disciplines include virology, immunology, biochemistry,
genetics, cell and structural biology, and regulation of cell
development. Presently, PHRI supports a staff of 110, including 20
Principal Investigators. These numbers are expected to double with the
move to the International Center.
UMDNJ will be the primary medical center linkage and academic
affiliation for the PHRI. The National Tuberculosis Center at UMDNJ,
one of only three model TB Prevention and Control Centers in the United
States funded by the CDC, will add an important clinical component to
the International Center. The TB Center was founded in 1993 as a
response to the national resurgence of antibiotic resistant
tuberculosis strains. At that time, Newark had the nation's second
highest rate of TB cases for a major city.
The relocation of the UMDNJ-NJMS Department of Microbiology will
add a staff of approximately 100 to the Center's critical mass of
microbiology research. Currently the 17-member faculty conducts
research in control of cell proliferation; cellular aging;
transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and transcriptional regulation;
mutagenis; DNA replication and recombination; chromosome structure and
segregation; human molecular genetics; and molecular pathogenesis of
viruses, bacteria and parasites.
The Anchor Project for University Heights Science Park
University Heights Science Park (UHSP) is a collaborative venture
of Newark's four higher education institutions, the City and Community
of Newark, and private industry, designed to harness university science
and technology research as a force for urban and regional economic and
community development. The university sponsors--New Jersey Institute of
Technology (NJIT), The University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
(UMDNJ), Rutgers University and Essex County College--annually conduct
nearly $100 million of research in Newark.
UHSP is unique among science parks nationally in that it is
designed as a mixed-use, community-based redevelopment program. At
buildout, Science Park will include one million square feet of
technology commercial space, 75,000 square feet of technology business
incubator space, 20,000 square feet of retail business opportunities,
an 800-student technology high school, two blocks of new and
rehabilitated housing, and a 100-child community day care center. The
$10 million first phase of Science Park is complete and includes a
technology business incubator, the 100-child day care center and
industrial prototype laboratories for biomaterials and medical devices.
The construction of the International Center will anchor the second
phase of Science Park and serve as a magnet to attract pharmaceutical,
diagnostic and biomedical companies to Science Park. The Center will
have the same impact on the Park as an anchor store does in a retail
shopping mall.
What this Project Means to Newark
The International Center means urban technology job opportunities,
improved health care, and creative educational opportunities for
Newark's youth. For minority and urban residents it is one challenge to
acquire necessary job skills, but it is another to have the means to
travel to where the jobs are. In the last 20 years Newark has lost
35,000 private sector jobs, many having moved to the western suburbs.
Science Park is a development strategy to bring well-paying jobs back
to Newark's urban center, providing City residents with access to the
technology jobs of the 21st century. The International Center project,
together with the three adjacent leveraged facilities, will generate
3,000 direct and indirect construction and permanent jobs. Located in
an urban, federal Enterprise Community neighborhood, these permanent
job opportunities are well paying with a wide range of qualifications
and educational requirements.
The City of Newark is New Jersey's largest municipality with
275,000 residents, 84 percent of whom are minorities, plus a
significant number of undocumented and uncounted residents. It is also
the State's most at-risk municipality when considering the health of
its residents. With unemployment hovering around 14 percent, Newark
carries a heavy burden of poverty reflected not only in low per capita
wages, but also in the highest rate of infectious diseases in the State
(tuberculosis, AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases). Being located
on the front line of infectious diseases, the new International Center
will provide cutting edge diagnostic and treatment support to the
City's health care providers, thereby ensuring that Newark residents
will benefit from the latest discoveries in the battle against
infectious diseases.
Today's youth are tomorrow's scientists. As a commitment to the
education of Newark's youth, Science Park projects include school
linkages and programs with technology tenants. PHRI, the proposed core
tenant in The International Center for Public Health, will establish
two educational programs to nurture and develop the interest of urban
and minority students in science and science-related careers.
ScienceLab will be a collaboration with the Newark Public Schools to
provide a year-round science education program for Newark high school
students and science teachers in a ``real-time'' private research
institute environment. The International Center will also sponsor a
BioMentors program and be part of the Westinghouse Science Talent
Search program. The goal of these educational programs is to influence
and encourage Newark high school students to pursue careers in
biomedical sciences and one day employ their skills in Science Park
companies.
How the International Center for Public Health Enhances and Implements
Department of Commerce (EDA) Objectives
The International Center for Public Health (ICPH) is a creative and
unique public/private partnership located in University Heights Science
Park, Newark, New Jersey that will combine infectious disease research
and public health programs; pharmaceutical industry participation;
international, state and regional public health collaborations; high
school urban and minority science education initiatives; urban economic
and community redevelopment, and high-technology job creation in a
federally designated Enterprise Community.
The Economic Development Agency (EDA) has historically supported
urban efforts to create and retain jobs. A new impetus results from the
need to effectively implement welfare reform as required by the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996. The role of universities in the revitalization of distressed
urban neighborhoods continues to expand, and has been an underutilized
resource for economic and community redevelopment. The International
Center will contribute to the achievement of these objectives in the
following ways:
Newark is a federally designated Enterprise Community (EC), and as
such is already part of a Federal strategy to attract and support
economic development activity that will create jobs in the urban core.
The 50-acre Science Park is located within the boundaries of one of the
EC neighborhoods. Approximately $14 million of the total $78 million
development cost for the International Center is for acquiring 14
acres, demolition, remediation and site infrastructure. This prepares
four building pads, one of which will be occupied by the International
Center as the anchor, magnet tenant to attract additional tenants. The
other three pads will be simultaneously marketed to private
pharmaceutical, diagnostic and biomedical companies who desire to be
adjacent to a world class biomedical research institute. The four pads
will generate a total of $138 million of development (including the
International Center for Public Health), 2,000 direct and indirect
construction jobs, and 1,000 direct and indirect permanent jobs.
The permanent jobs include custodial and clerical positions, lab
technicians, medical personnel, researchers, and administrators.
Science Park will work directly with the Essex County College (one of
its sponsoring educational institutions) and their Technology Training
Project (TTP) to train Newark residents as lab technicians for the
International Center. TTP is privately sponsored by New Jersey's
biomedical industry and has been in existence for nearly 30 years. TTP
currently trains and places 50 lab technicians annually, all of whom
are high school graduates or adults looking for a new career.
This project redevelops urban land, preserves open green space, and
utilizes existing public transportation (bus and subway) to the
doorstep of the Park. The International Center for Public Health will
serve as the cornerstone to launch Phase II of University Heights
Science Park's 50-acre urban redevelopment initiative. The $10 million
completion of Phase I in the Fall of 1996 includes the NJIT Enterprise
Development Center 2, a 100-child day care center and the CHEN Building
(housing the industrial liaison laboratories for the Center for
Biomaterials and Medical Devices). The technology business incubator is
100 percent leased with 17 new technology start-up companies. Forty
percent of the incubator companies are minority and/or women-owned
technology business enterprises. In addition, over half of the children
in the Science Park day care center are from the surrounding community,
and 90 percent of the day care center staff live in Newark. At buildout
the Science Park will generate over $350 million of construction, 5,000
direct and indirect construction jobs, and 6,600 direct and indirect
permanent jobs with an annual payroll of $275 million.
The development of the ICPH at UHSP accomplishes a sister agency's
objective to expand the role of universities in urban redevelopment.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains the Office of
University Partnerships, a division which recognizes that universities
are anchor institutions in many distressed urban neighborhoods and have
a vital stake and role to play in economic and community
revitalization. NJIT, UMDNJ, Rutgers and ECC are adjacent to each other
in Newark's Central Ward and form the Council for Higher Education
(CHEN) in Newark. For almost two decades CHEN has jointly sponsored
housing, retail/commercial development and educational programs (in
collaboration with Newark's public schools) in Newark's neighborhoods.
The four CHEN institutions are the founders of University Heights
Science Park and are solidly behind the development of the
International Center for Public Health.
Current Status of the International Center for Public Health Project
In recognition of the enormous economic and scientific value of the
International Center for Public Health, and through the leadership and
direction of Governor Christine Todd Whitman, a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) was executed between the State of New Jersey, UHSP,
UMDNJ and PHRI in October, 1997. The MOU commits $60 million of State
loan and grant funds toward development of the $78 million
International Center for Public Health. Science Park is working closely
with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, through whom
project bonds will be issued and 14-acres of land acquired. Presently
the Science Park partners and International Center for Public Health
tenants are seeking the remaining $16 million from Federal and private
sources during 1998. Groundbreaking is scheduled for March 1999.
Request For Assistance
University Heights Science Park is requesting $9 million from the
Department of Commerce Economic Development Agency in fiscal year 1999
to support the Phase II development of Science Park: the construction
of the International Center for Public Health. Such support will
leverage Phase II development that totals $138 million, and creates
nearly 3,000 direct and indirect construction and permanent technology
jobs. These funds will be used specifically for construction related
project costs. This project is a top priority for UMDNJ, Rutgers, New
Jersey Institute of Technology, Essex County College and the City of
Newark.
On behalf of UMDNJ, we thank the Committee for the opportunity to
present this request. We appreciate your consideration of our
proposals, and hope to receive your support for the development of the
creation of the International Center for Public Health at University
Heights Science Park, Newark, NJ.
______
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Prepared Statement of the American Oceans Campaign
On behalf of American Oceans Campaign, a national environmental
organization dedicated to protecting the oceans and its living
resources, we submit this statement in support of fully funding the
Administration's requests for critical programs and initiatives of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We request that
this statement be included in the Senate Appropriations Committee's
hearing record for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and the
Judiciary Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. Today, we would
like to focus our comments on NOAA's budget requests for fishery
management programs and its Clean Water Initiative.
implementation of the magnuson-stevens fishery conservation and
management act of 1996
American Oceans Campaign urges the Committee to, at a minimum,
match the Administration's request for the base activities and programs
of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in order to ensure the
complete and expedient implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1996. Programs and activities
identified in the NMFS budget request that require funding to meet the
objectives and requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act include
resource information, fishery management programs, regional Fishery
Management Councils, and enforcement/surveillance.
In recent years, the general public has been deluged with
information detailing the steep declines in our nation's marine
fisheries. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction
whose status is known, 36 percent are either overfished or approaching
an overfished condition. The list of overfished stocks includes many of
the nation's most prized fish species from around the country,
including: Atlantic salmon and many species of Pacific salmon, Atlantic
swordfish, Gulf of Mexico red snapper, New England cod, many species of
grouper, and American lobster. NMFS expects the list of overfished
species to grow significantly when overfishing definitions are revised
to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act in October 1998.
The ecological and economic impacts of these declines are
significant not only to coastal communities, but also to the nation as
a whole. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a potential
$25 billion impact on the national economy. In addition, restoring
fisheries to sustainable levels will help to bring back an ecological
balance in our marine environment.
In response to the high-profile problems afflicting our fisheries
and coastal communities, the 104th Congress took a significant step in
rebuilding marine fisheries by enacting the Sustainable Fisheries Act
Amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996. Under the amended
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS
are required to adopt or amend fishery management plans that: (1)
identify overfished stocks and stocks approaching an overfished
condition, and prevent or eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished
stocks; (2) avoid bycatch and minimize the mortality of unavoidable
bycatch; and (3) identify, designate and protect essential fish
habitat, including minimizing adverse effects on essential fish habitat
caused by fishing and non-fishing activities.
Resource Information
NMFS is requesting $92.7 million for base program activities
associated with Resource Information. This represents an $8.95 million
increase over current funding levels. This increase is to be used to
conduct stock assessments which are needed to meet Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements and to restore base program funding that was used to meet
earmarks in the fiscal year 1998 budget. With the status of many fish
stocks declining at rapid rates and a growing skepticism among resource
users of NMFS stock assessment data, funding to ensure use of the best
available and most accurate science is imperative.
American Oceans Campaign recommends that the Senate fund NMFS
Resource Information programs at the level requested by the
Administration--$92.7 million.
Fishery Management Plans
NMFS is requesting $34.4 million for base funding to support
fishery management programs. This represents an increase of $8.65
million over the current year's funding levels. This increase includes
$2.85 million for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management
plan amendments which implement the overfishing and bycatch provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
management plans; and finally, $1.5 million to restore base program
funding that was used to cover earmarks of the fiscal year 1998 budget.
Ensuring compliance of fishery management plans with the new
conservation provisions of the SFA aimed at preventing overfishing,
minimizing bycatch, and protecting essential fish habitat is the first
step towards rebuilding U.S. fishery populations to sustainable levels.
American Oceans Campaign recommends that the Senate provide, at a
minimum, the $34.4 million in NMFS' base funding for implementing
fishery management programs.
Regional Fishery Management Councils
NMFS is requesting $12.8 million to support the work of the eight
regional fishery management councils. This represents an increase of
$900,000 over funding levels for this year.
Fishery Management Councils were given significant responsibilities
under the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act. Most important, the Councils are
charged with developing and implementing the important new conservation
provisions for the fisheries under their jurisdiction. Last year, this
Subcommittee recognized the increased duties of the councils and
provided $13 million to support the work of the regional Councils.
American Oceans Campaign recommends that this Subcommittee again
provide $13 million for the regional Fishery Management Councils.
Enforcement/Surveillance
NMFS is requesting $18.5 million to support its enforcement duties
related to fishery management. This represents a $900,000 increase over
the actual funding levels for this year.
The enactment of the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
will require greater enforcement efforts from NMFS. The agency is
intending to use the increased resources to expand efforts at voluntary
compliance and vessel monitoring. Unfortunately, these initiatives are
being scaled back due to NMFS receiving an adequate increase in the
fiscal year 1998 budget.
American Oceans Campaign supports the Administration's request of
$18.5 million to strengthen compliance, surveillance, and enforcement
activities of NMFS. We consider these activities to be critical for our
national efforts to restore depleted fisheries to healthy and
sustainable levels.
clean water initiative
American Oceans Campaign urges the Subcommittee to, at a minimum,
match the Administration's request for a coastal water quality
initiative in NOAA's budget. This $22 million initiative funds the
National Ocean Service (NOS) responsibilities and programs that are
included in the Administration's recently announced Clean Water Action
Plan. American Oceans Campaign considers the funding request to be
absolutely critical for curtailing and preventing polluted runoff
(nonpoint pollution) in our nation's coastal areas.
Polluted runoff impairs more water bodies nationwide than any other
pollution source. It occurs when rain, snow melt or other water washes
over land, packing up oils and metals from parking lots and streets,
pesticides from agricultural lands and lawns, excess nutrients from
fertilizers and animal wastes, sediment, and other contaminants.
Eventually, these contaminants find their way into streams, lakes,
estuaries, and oceans.
The environmental and economic impacts of this pollution on the
coast are significant. Contaminants which enter storm sewers after
rains pour into coastal waters at storm drain outfalls, causing beaches
to close and health advisories against swimming to be issued. Polluted
runoff is also responsible for closed or harvest-limited shellfish
beds, declining fisheries, red tides, and other harmful algal blooms,
fish kills, sediment contamination, habitat destruction, deteriorating
coral reefs, and impurities in the drinking water supplies of coastal
communities. Researchers in the mid-Atlantic states are also studying
the links between nutrient pollution from runoff and outbreaks of
Pfiesteria.
Coastal waters provide considerable benefits to local communities
and the nation as a whole. U.S. beaches and coastal areas rank as a
favorite vacation destination for Americans, with the average resident
spending 10 recreational days on the coasts each year. In addition,
more than 75 percent of the United States' commercial fish catch
depends on estuaries. Further investments which prevent and clean up
the pollution damaging these coastal areas make perfect environmental
and economic sense.
The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is our nation's best
hope for reducing polluted runoff. Unlike other federal programs, this
program ensures that actions to control polluted runoff will be taken
if voluntary measures are ineffective. It stresses coordination among
agencies, and allows states and local governments to craft their own
clean-up and prevention strategies for their coastal areas subject to
minimum national standards.
Since 1990, NOS has been working with coastal states to develop
nonpoint pollution control programs for the state's coastal zone.
States are currently in the process of completing their coastal
nonpoint source pollution control plans. The national program has now
reached a critical stage where funding is absolutely necessary to
ensure states have adequate resources to finalize their management
programs. Additional funds are absolutely essential so that states and
territories can implement programs to prevent polluted runoff and help
restore coastal water quality.
American Oceans Campaign urges the Senate to support NOAA's fiscal
year 1999 budget request of $22 million for its Clean Water Initiative.
This money is needed to help protect coastal communities from polluted
runoff and harmful algal blooms.
In summary, as America celebrates the ``International Year of the
Oceans and the majesty of the oceans, we call upon this Senate
subcommittee to increase funding for key NOAA programs that help to
protect the oceans and its living resources for this and future
generations. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Marine Conservation
The Center for Marine Conservation appreciates this opportunity to
share our views regarding the President's fiscal year 1999 budget
request for the marine conservation programs of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Center for Marine Conservation is committed to protecting ocean
environments and conserving the global abundance and diversity of
marine life. Through science-based advocacy, research and public
education, CMC promotes informed citizen participation to reverse the
degradation of our oceans. CMC is a nonprofit conservation organization
with 120,000 contributing members, headquartered in Washington DC, with
field and regional offices in California, Florida and Virginia.
In this the International Year of the Ocean, we commend this
Subcommittee for the commitment it has shown to the protection of our
marine ecosystems in the appropriations bill, for this fiscal year,
passed by the United States Senate last year. We urge this
Subcommittee, at a minimum, to provide funding for the base activities
of the marine stewardship programs of NOAA requested by the President.
We also urge you to provide for the additional needs described below.
national ocean service
National Marine Sanctuary Program
We urge the committee to provide $18 million for this important
program, the authorized level. We were extremely disappointed by the
President's request of only $13.8 million. The request represents cut
in the of $800,000 from the $14 million level provided by Congress for
this year.
Often referred to as our marine parks, the 12 sanctuaries around
the country encompass almost 18,000 square miles of the nation's most
significant marine resources. Yet as this month's issue of National
Geographic points out: ``The entire system has an annual budget of
$11.7 million (referring to the fiscal year 1997 budget)--a sum in
effect that reduces these sanctuaries to a state of poverty * * * The
typical sanctuary, therefore must take care of an enormous area with a
staff that could fit in a broom closet.'' In 1990, an independent
National Marine Sanctuary Program review panel recommended annual
funding of $30 million, a recommendation that was endorsed by NOAA's
public advisory committee in 1992. Furthermore, this year NOAA is
beginning a resource intensive review of each sanctuary's management
plan as required by law, but the Administration has provided no
additional resources for this important work.
South Florida Interagency Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
We recommend that the Committee fully fund NOAA's portion of this
vital initiative for the coming fiscal year. The $5.1 million requested
by NOAA, a small portion of the overall request for the Initiative,
involves $3.2 million in the National Ocean Service budget for
monitoring and modeling, and will allow NOAA to fully implement its
integrated ecosystem monitoring program in Florida Bay and the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary. These waters are the downstream end of
the South Florida ecosystem and thus are affected by the activities of
other agencies working to restore and protect the Everglades. The
monitoring program will help the agency model and assess changes to the
marine resources of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys coral reef system.
The Administration's request also includes $1.9 million in NMFS' budget
for fisheries restoration and research.
The Control of Polluted Runoff to Coastal Waters
We urge the Committee to provide $22 million for NOAA's portion of
the Administration's Clean Water Initiative. These funds are a sound
investment in the future of our coastal waters. The Administration's
request includes $10 million for NOAA to conduct research, monitoring
and assessments of harmful algal blooms such as Pfiesteria and red
tides through funding the National Pfiesteria Research and Monitoring
Strategy, and the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Boom
program.
The Initiative also includes $12 million for the states to complete
and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs,
authorized under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). This program was unfunded in 1996 and 1997.
For the current year Congress gave the program a needed boost by
providing for the President's request of $1 million. Much more funding
is needed, however, for 1999.
Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, is the largest
source of pollution to the nation's coastal waters and is responsible
for beach and shell fish bed closures. Section 6217 promotes reducing
polluted runoff to coastal waters through better government
coordination. There are few enforceable controls on this massive source
of coastal pollution which threatens ecosystems, public health and
local economies. Section 6217 is the only national program to ensure
that if voluntary measures taken to reduce polluted runoff are
ineffective, the State has enforceable backup authority to protect
coastal waters.
The nation's 6217 program has now reached a critical stage where
adequate funding is absolutely necessary to ensure states and
territories have resources to finalize and implement their programs.
Twenty-nine coastal states and territories have submitted programs to
NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency for final review and
approval. Seventeen of these programs have already been conditionally
approved, but there remains a great deal of work to be done. Additional
funds are essential so that states and territories can complete their
programs and begin to implement management measures to reduce the
impacts of polluted runoff.
Commission on Ocean Policy
We urge the committee to reject the Administration's proposed cut
of $1 million for this commission. It is our hope that the Ocean Act of
1997 will soon be enacted.
national marine fisheries service
Resource Information
We support the Administration's request for an additional $8.95
million in funding for the Resource Information base program. Congress
provided a significant $8 million increase for the program this year,
but accompanied that increase with $12.4 million worth of earmarks. As
a result, the agency has curtailed ongoing stock assessment and data
collection work. The requested increase for next year will be used by
the agency for much needed stock and bycatch assessments as required
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In highlighting the effects of Congressional earmarks in this
program (and in Fisheries Management) we are not opposed to them.
Nearly all of these additional activities have merit. But absent the
needed increases for the base programs, they erode the benefit to the
marine environment of budget increases. We therefore request that the
committee fund earmarks and add-ons with funds that are in addition to
those requested by the Administration for core programmatic activities.
CMC supports the continued funding for research into Dolphin Safe
technologies. Continued research into sound ecological ways of catching
large yellowfin tuna without encircling dolphins is critical to the
conservation of dolphins, the tuna fishery, and the marine ecosystem of
the Eastern Pacific Ocean. We also support maintaining funding for New
England stock depletion research and the Gulf of Maine groundfish
survey.
We are, however, very concerned about some of the cuts proposed in
specific line items under Resource Information in the Administration's
request. We oppose the following proposed cuts:
--the $200,000 cut for in the right whale research line item and the
elimination of the gear modification research line item. With
only 300 North Atlantic right whales remaining, and the
species' continued existence threatened by entanglement in
fishing gear and collisions with vessels, research must be
continued to improve our understanding of right whale biology,
determine the frequency and location of entanglements and
collisions, and allow for the development of technologies to
modify fishing to reduce entanglements.
--the $50,000 cut in the Hawaiian monk seal line item. Hawaiian monk
seals are the most endangered pinniped in the United States. We
must commit the necessary funds to ensure that projects such as
health assessments, marine debris assessments and removals, and
habitat and foraging studies go forward.
--the cut for the Stellar sea lion recovery plan line item. Since
1994, the number of juvenile and adult Stellers has dropped by
18 percent in the Gulf of Alaska population alone. Pup counts
at Alaska's largest rookeries fell by 40 percent between 1991-
1994. Using current population models, fisheries service
biologists predict there is nearly a 100 percent chance the
western Steller sea lion population will be extinct in the next
65 to 100 years. CMC believes that current management measures
are insufficient to prevent the extinction of this species and
must therefore be modified. We recommend an additional $1
million, over the President's request, for additional research
including assessing how well fishing area closure zones have
functioned to benefit Steller sea lions, and developing
adaptive management experiments to reexamine how Stellers may
interact with fishing operations.
Fisheries Management Programs
The marine fishery resources of the United States are in serious
trouble. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction,
whose status is known, 36 percent are overutilized. NMFS estimates that
restoring fisheries will have a potential $25 billion total positive
impact on the national economy.
These public resources must be managed on a sustainable basis and
assessments must be completed (for exploited stocks in particular) and
kept up to date. In 1996, Congress took the first step in rebuilding
and conserving these public resources by enacting the Sustainable
Fisheries Act which strengthened the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
regional fishery management councils and NMFS are required to adopt or
amend fishery management plans that: (1) identify overfished stocks and
stocks approaching an overfished condition, and prevent or eliminate
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; (2) avoid bycatch and
minimize the mortality of unavoidable bycatch; and (3) identify,
designate and protect essential fish habitat, including minimizing
adverse effects on essential fish habitat caused by fishing and
consulting with federal agencies proposing activities that may
adversely affect such habitat.
Last year, this Subcommittee demonstrated a recognition of the
importance of restoring and managing the public's fishery resources.
You went beyond the President's request for fisheries management
programs by providing $30 million. Unfortunately, your increase was not
sustained in the Conference Committee with $27.25 million being
provided. While an increase was still provided, NMFS received only half
the additional funding needed to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As
a result, the agency is limited in its ability to implement the Act's
new provisions relating to overfishing, bycatch and essential fish
habitat. The reduction from the Administration's request also limits
resources available for implementing fishery management plans developed
by the councils.
NMFS has requested an increase of $8.65 million and 5 additional
FTE;s over the current year's funding level including: $2.85 million
for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management plan
amendments to implement new overfishing, rebuilding and bycatch
provisions of the Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
management plans; and $1.5 million for restoration of funds to the base
program used to cover this year's earmarks.
We recommend that the Subcommittee provide for these needed
increases.
Regional Fishery Management Councils
For the current fiscal year, the Senate recognized the increased
demands placed upon the councils to implement the critical conservation
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and went beyond the President in
recommending $13 million. While the Conference Committee provided $11.9
million, this figure was still above the President's request and a
needed boost in council resources. We recommend that the Senate again
provide for $13 million, and at a minimum, no less than the $12.8
million requested by the Administration.
Protected Species Management
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The President's request for $9.5 million for Marine Mammal
Protection Act implementation is woefully inadequate. We recommend an
appropriation of $18 million. In 1994, the Center for Marine
Conservation worked with the Congress and the fishing industry to amend
the MMPA and institute a system to reduce the accidental mortality of
marine mammals in commercial fishing operations. The program devised by
these amendments anticipated stepped up monitoring and management
activities. Twenty million dollars alone is needed to conduct the
necessary marine mammal research and stock assessments, convene
incidental take reduction teams, devise and implement take reduction
plans, develop a streamlined system to report incidental mortality,
observe fisheries at levels necessary to accurately determine
incidental mortality, and to conduct public outreach to the fishing
community to inform them of the various requirements under the MMPA.
Lack of funding has been one of the primary reasons for NMFS's failure
to effectively implement the MMPA. Furthermore, inadequate funding and
the ineffectual implementation of the MMPA that is causes, threatens to
destroy unprecedented cooperation, started in 1994, among conservation
groups, commercial fishing industry, and the government.
In addition, the proposed level of funding, does not provide
sufficient research funds to assess marine mammal populations and to
investigate fishing gear and technologies that reduce incidental
mortality. These two areas are critical to the conservation of marine
mammals while still allowing the commercial fishing operations to
continue.
As regards other sections and titles of the MMPA, Congress
authorized nearly $19 million for implementation. Consequently, the
proposed budget is insufficient to implement these sections as well.
For example, Title IV, the Marine Mammal Health Stranding and Response
Act has been historically underfunded; nevertheless, unexplained die-
offs of marine mammals have continued on almost an annual basis along
the United States coastline. Additionally, this Title should assist in
funding the rescue of starved, sick, or injured seal and sea lion pups
associated with El Nino in California. NMFS' response to these die-offs
has been hampered because, to date, no funds have been appropriated to
the Emergency Response Fund.
Endangered Species Recovery Plans
The Center for Marine Conservation appreciates the $10.25 million
increase in appropriations and the additional 14 FTE's for Endangered
Species Act Recovery Plans. However, the allocation of $2.95 million to
critically endangered species such as the North Atlantic right whale,
Hawaiian monk seals, and Steller sea lions is still insufficient to
recover these species. We therefore recommend an additional $4 million
for this line item. At the current level of funding NMFS will be unable
to implement and revise recovery plans for these marine mammals. NMFS
will also be unable to develop and implement recovery plans for all
other species (other than salmon) currently listed and under its
authority, adequately and promptly process and issue permits for
scientific research, and meet new mandates to conduct research programs
that will move NMFS toward an ecosystem approach to managing marine
mammals and other protected species.
Dolphin Encirclement
The Center for Marine Conservation supports the $3.3 million
appropriation to continue a four-year study on the effects of
encirclement on dolphins as a method for harvesting tuna. However, the
President's budget fails to include $3 million, authorized by Congress,
for the implementation of the International Dolphin Conservation
Program Act. This money is badly needed to develop and implement
domestic regulations and participate in the international program that
will allow the United States tuna fishery to participate in the
yellowfin purse seine fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Additionally, these funds are needed to develop a tracking and
monitoring system for verification of ``dolphin-safe'' tuna. CMC urges
Congress to appropriate an additional $3 million to permit effective
implementation of this law which had strong bipartisan support.
Habitat Conservation
CMC supports the Administration's requested $2.3 million increase
in Habitat Conservation. We are concerned, however, about potential
impacts of the transfer of the Beaufort, NC, and Oxford, MD, labs from
NMFS to NOS. We urge the Committee to make sure that agreements are put
in place between the two agencies that ensure NMFS will be able to meet
its habitat responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Enforcement and Surveillance
CMC supports the Administration's proposed $900,000 increase and
the additional 5 FTE's for enforcement. Adequate funding for
enforcement and surveillance activities is critical to the successful
implementation of any statute. The enactment of the new provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act require a greater enforcement effort from
NMFS. Moreover, it is doubtful that the proposed $18.5 million is
adequate to cover the enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the Endangered Species Act as well as the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Initiatives to expand efforts at voluntary compliance and vessel
monitoring are being curtailed as a result of not receiving an adequate
increase for this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coast Alliance
Mr. Chairman: The undersigned conservation, environmental, and
fishing groups are submitting testimony to urge you to support a $22
million appropriation for a coastal initiative in the fiscal year 1999
budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the Department of Commerce. This funding request, called NOAA's
Clean Water Initiative, is absolutely critical to fight polluted
runoff, which is the leading source of water quality impairment. Last
year, many coastal communities were devastated by outbreaks of red
tides, dead zones, and Pfiesteria. In varying degrees, polluted runoff
is implicated in these harmful events. The funding will provide states
with the necessary resources to complete and begin to implement their
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs, and will provide critical
funds for additional research, monitoring and assessment of the causes
of hazardous algal blooms and oxygen depletion.
Our economy depends on healthy coastal waters. The U.S. coasts
support 34 percent of our national employment, more than 28 million
jobs, and 70 percent of commercial and recreational fisheries.
Commercial fishing is a $45 billion industry employing more than a
quarter of a million people. We also spend about $24 billion per year
on recreational fishing, generating $69 billion for our economy, much
of it in coastal areas.
Our coasts need help. Polluted runoff from farms, roads, timber,
mining and construction activities, faulty septic systems, and other
nonpoint sources of pollution is a major threat to coastal waters and
marine life. It is the main reason why nearly 40 percent of tested
waters in this country are not fishable and swimmable. It is
responsible for thousands of beach closings and fishing advisories,
millions of dead fish, and the closure for harvest of 30 percent of the
nation's shellfish beds.
The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is our nation's best
hope for reducing polluted runoff. Unlike other federal programs, the
Coastal Nonpoint Program ensures that actions to control polluted
runoff will be taken when voluntary measures are ineffective. It
stresses coordination among agencies, and allows state and local
governments to craft their own clean-up and prevention strategies for
their coastal areas subject to minimum national standards. States are
currently in the process of completing their coastal nonpoint source
pollution control plans. States need adequate funding to secure final
approval of their programs and to implement management measures that
will prevent polluted runoff.
The program has been woefully under-funded over the last few years.
This has deprived many states of the resources necessary to complete
and implement their nonpoint source pollution control programs. We urge
you to support NOAA's $22 million request to address non-point source
pollution and toxic algal blooms. We need to start making real progress
in preventing polluted runoff. The very large payoff for water quality,
wildlife, jobs, and the economy easily justifies this modest funding
request.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Raymond E. Bye, Jr., Associate Vice President
for Research, Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
capitol of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1950; prior to
that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
women's college. While widely-known for our athletics teams, we have a
rapidly-emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
University several years ago, Florida State University currently
exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
agricultural nor medical school, few institutions can boast of that
kind of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We
have high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists
and engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with
industry to commercialize those results. Florida State ranks seventh
this year among all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its
patents and licenses. In short, Florida State University is an exciting
and rapidly-changing institution.
Mr. Chairman, let me describe two projects that we are pursuing
this year. The first is a major collaborative program which focuses on
climate variability in the State of Florida and the Southeast.
Objectives include developing scientific applications for climate data.
This consortium draws upon the expertise of scientists at FSU (climate
analyses and coupled ocean-atmosphere prediction models), UM (climate
analyses and economic value of forecasts), and the University of
Florida (agriculture) to quantify climate variability (e.g., the El
Nino phenomena) for the SE and to explore the potential value and
practical application (there is a strong emphasis on agricultural
applications) of climate forecasts.
During the initial phase of this effort, the FSU team described
qualitatively the impact of El Nino (and the other extreme, La Nina) on
temperature and precipitation patterns across the SE. Additionally,
they found a geographic shift in tornadic activity associated with El
Nino events. A new climate forecast system to provide predictions of
seasonal temperatures and precipitation with longer lead times and
improved skill is in the testing phase. Improvements are due partly to
the coupled nature (i.e., linking the ocean and atmosphere so they
respond to each other dynamically) of the forecast system. Our
colleagues at the University of Florida identified several crops in
Florida which are vulnerable to shifts in weather patterns associated
with El Nino and La Nina, but noted further that the impact is not
uniform in nature across the state.
Continuing with this collaboration, we hope to estimate the
economic advantages that could be achieved by incorporating climate
forecast information into farming management systems and eventually
work with sector representatives in developing guidance products for
the agricultural community. Initial funding has been provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
We are seeking $3 million from NOAA to continue and expand this
work in fiscal year 1999.
Our second project we propose is a cooperative agreement with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is in the U.S.
Department of Commerce, to provide funds for research and training
directed towards building and sustaining fishery resources and healthy
coasts in the southeastern United States (U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA Strategic Plan: a Vision for 2005, pp. 9-12). This agreement will
expand and strengthen the Institute for Fishery Resource Ecology
(IFRE), which is a successful three-year old partnership between the
NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) and Florida State
University.
Healthy coastal and marine resources play a major role in Florida's
economy. Commercial and recreational fisheries have a direct value of
$4 billion annually. That fraction of Florida's annual tourist industry
associated with diving, which hinges upon tourists' desire to enjoy a
healthy coastal environment, produces an additional $3 billion
annually. All of these resources are at risk; Florida's citizens are
concerned about this risk and Florida's best intellectual resources
ought to help find solutions to the problems that have created that
risk.
The partnership between FSU and the NMFS will support a variety of
programs. The critical research problems include, among others, finding
reliable indicators of habitat quality, determining the critical
factors that affect the numbers of fishes, and evaluating different
ecological, economic, and social approaches to developing sustainable
use of these resources. The results of this research are brought to
bear on current management by the involvement of our scientists with
the regional fisheries management councils of the Gulf of Mexico and
the South Atlantic.
The scientists working in the IFRE will play vital roles as
educators. Most obviously, they will be training the next generation of
resource managers and scientists through the graduate programs of the
university. But they will also teach the next generation of resource
users. They will engage undergraduates through problem-oriented
classes, internships with FSU faculty and NMFS scientists, and work
experience on contracts and grants. They will also help expand FSU's
award-winning outreach programs in marine biology for elementary and
middle-school students in north Florida.
The proposed partnership will grow through the IFRE over the next
five years. In the first year, we will solidify the scientific
research, education, and outreach programs. We will also strengthen our
ties to local, state, and federal resource management agencies. This
research and education effort will provide the foundation for phase
two, in which we will develop a multidisciplinary program in policy
sciences by instituting new courses oriented towards social scientists
and expanding our research into areas of policy sciences. All of these
efforts are consistent with NOAA's Strategic Plan.
These programs will include a commitment to the minority community.
Of course, we want to attract and retain minority students in careers
in either the natural or policy sciences in the area of marine
resources. We have experience in doing so and will continue to work
closely with the Florida-Georgia Alliance for Minority Progress Program
at Florida A&M University, and with the NMFS Science Center, to
identify and recruit interested students. In addition, we want to use
our outreach programs to continue providing educational opportunities
for the elementary and secondary school students in the predominantly
rural, African-American communities in our area.
We are requesting a specific line for this effort within the NMFS
budget, and in the Administrative Operations portion. We request a
separate line item in the Resource Information portion, designating $1
million for this joint NMPS/FSU project. In addition, we have requested
that the Florida legislature provide a substantial state match for
these federal funds.
Mr. Chairman, these activities discussed will make important
contributions to solving some key problems and concerns we face today.
Your support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an
opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert Ballard, President, Institute for
Exploration, Sea Research Foundation
My name is Dr. Robert Ballard. I serve as President of the
Institute for Exploration (IFE) at the Sea Research Foundation in
Mystic, Connecticut and I am Founder and Chief Scientist of the JASON
Foundation for Education. My entire career has involved oceanography.
In the last decade, I have been heavily involved with education,
particularly the application of electronic communications to distance
learning for students in K-12. As an educator and oceanographer
speaking on behalf of JASON, IFE and millions of students and teachers
throughout the United States, I would like to thank the members of this
subcommittee for approving $15.5 million for NOAA's National Undersea
Research Program (NURP) in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice,
State and Judiciary Appropriations bill. The $15.5 million in funding
for NURP will go a long way toward enhancing knowledge about our
planet's largest and most basic ecosystem, the ocean. Furthermore, by
directing that JASON and NURP work together to develop a program that
will translate the data from America's NURP laboratories to students
and teachers throughout the United States, the bill recognizes that
oceanographic research is not only intrinsically important but that it
should also serve education by stimulating interest in science and
technology. This NURP-JASON partnership, inspired by the International
Year of the Ocean, is already proving to be highly productive with an
exciting and innovative plan for long-term collaboration taking shape.
That is why I urge the subcommittee to approve funding for NURP at a
higher level than fiscal year 1998 and to once again make provisions
for an expanded NURP-JASON partnership for fiscal year 1999. On behalf
of the partnership established between NURP, JASON and IFE, I request
that $2 million be directed toward that partnership.
The members of the subcommittee, no doubt, are aware of the
relatively modest sums our country invests in oceanographic research
compared to other endeavors such as medicine or space exploration. As a
result, we know relatively little about the sea and almost nothing
about the ocean depths. It's said that we know more about the surface
of Mars, for example, than we do the bottom of the ocean. At the same
time, I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Americans
recognize the importance of oceans to the overall health of our planet.
In fact, a survey of 1,014 randomly selected adults commissioned by the
Pew Charitable Trust last August showed that most Americans feel a
personal, if not spiritual, connection with the oceans. When asked to
choose between space and ocean exploration, 55 percent of those
surveyed thought ocean exploration should be the priority as opposed to
35 percent who chose space. Although I believe both areas should be
priorities--indeed they should be explored together as inter-related
parts of our own biosphere--in my view we need to invest considerably
more in ocean research. The dividends we would reap from enhanced
knowledge about this vital realm that covers three-quarters of the
Earth's surface would be incalculable.
Young people, of course, have an insatiable curiosity and for them,
the oceans have a particular fascination. I discovered that in the
months after I located the wreck of the Titanic in the North Atlantic
more than ten years ago. To my surprise, I soon began getting thousands
of letters from young people all over the world who wanted to know more
about the Titanic and how we found its remains. On the part of so many
of these students, I found a particular hunger for more information
about the science, the technology and engineering that went into that
discovery. That's when I decided to start the JASON Foundation for
Education.
Now in its ninth year, JASON's mission is to excite and engage
students in science and technology and to motivate and provide
professional development for their teachers. From oceans to rain
forests, from polar regions to volcanoes, the JASON Project explores
Planet Earth and closely examines its biological and geological
development. Using advanced telecommunications technology under the
guidance of their teachers, students learn the physical, biological and
historical significance of the area under study and work with leading
scientists to develop an appreciation in the earth's total ecology. The
young voyagers in school districts throughout the country become hands-
on participants. With internet and telepresence supplementing classroom
instruction, students engage in a ``you-are-there'' experience. A
network of museums, educational and government institutions, businesses
and research organizations throughout the world serve as JASON sites
allowing students to communicate with scientists at the expedition
site, operate robots and scientific equipment via remote control and
see live, up-to-the minute coverage of expedition activities. Most
importantly, these sites link the JASON project with community
resources, including access to local scientists and experts.
With congressional approval in the fiscal year 1998 NOAA
Appropriation for JASON's newly-established partnership with our
nation's NURP laboratories, JASON and its many participants will
benefit enormously from the data and insights developed by marine
scientists on both of our nation's coasts and in Hawaii. Within weeks
of congressional passage of the NURP-JASON partnership, five of the six
NURP laboratory directors met at the Institute for Exploration (IFE) to
prepare a plan of action. Based on that initial meeting and its follow-
up, I am pleased to inform the subcommittee that the NURP laboratories
will be an integral part of the 1998 JASON Expedition to Monterey Bay
and Bermuda. NURP scientists are already involved in the planning of
the program. During the expedition itself which begins in less than two
weeks, NURP will make its scientists available to interact with
students on real-time oceanographic activities.
By serving as a mentoring organization to JASON, I believe NURP
benefits as well. NURP does an outstanding job with the resources they
have and the program should have more, but very few people have ever
heard of the program. Through its association with JASON, millions of
students along with their teachers, administrators and parents will not
only hear about NURP, they will be able to see the work NURP does and
interact with its personnel. Above all, the program will have the
opportunity to present its data to young minds that are eager to learn.
Many of them will themselves choose careers in science, hopefully in
oceanography, as well as a whole range of existing and emerging
opportunities in science and technology.
An important element to the NURP-JASON partnership will be the
involvement of the Institute for Exploration (IFE) as a full partner.
Special exhibitry and on-line programming that will be developed and
displayed at the IFE will make permanent the legacy of the
International Year of the Ocean. (Through its affiliation with the
Mystic Aquarium, the IFE participates in one of America's five Coastal
Learning Centers that is working in collaboration with the Department
of Commerce and other government agencies to educate the public on the
critical need to protect and preserve the wealth and beauty of our
coastline.)
The exhibitry and public outreach technology for education to be
established at the IFE under the provisions of the fiscal year 1998
Appropriations bill, is just the beginning of the NURP-JASON-IFE
partnership. JASON and IFE have submitted to NURP detailed work
proposals for the next five years that begin with continued and
expanded outreach to the millions of students from K-12 who join
JASON's expeditions every year. NURP, JASON and IFE agree that our
primary mission is to continue to educate young people about the
oceans, the planet and its different environments and how they all work
together to create the earth's total ecology. The technology-based
partnership we propose, however, includes much more. Working together,
we propose that IFE, NURP and JASON develop new technologies for
exploration and research and that these be used to bring remote oceans
to the classrooms and living rooms of America. This will include: the
use of remotely operated vehicles for coastal research, exploration and
education; establishment of a national network of regional-scale ocean
observing systems; and promotion of public awareness of the oceans.
This partnership will wed the best elements of basic science working in
the field with educational outreach applying distance learning, on-line
communication, curriculum development and classroom instruction.
This testimony describes the benefits of the NURP-JASON-IFE
partnership to science and to education, but there is no substitute for
seeing for yourself how JASON works and I certainly encourage everyone
to do so. One of our thirty-plus Primary Interactive Network Sites
(PINS) is located at the National Geographic Society in Washington,
D.C. Students from the District of Columbia and surrounding states will
fill the auditorium for five sessions a day for two weeks in the latter
part of March. I hope the subcommittee members and their staffs will
contact Andy van Duym (202 857-7700) to arrange a time when they might
be able to participate in the JASON program.
I am aware that in approaching the subcommittee for funding to
continue the NURP-JASON-IFE partnership, it is unreasonable to expect
the government sector to support our efforts if we cannot support
ourselves. The fact is, this partnership combines the best elements of
a public-private partnership. In this case, one-third of the costs of
JASON's annual programming will be borne by the private sector through
the generous support of corporate sponsors, another third by the fees
paid by participants in the program and another third through the
support of the Congress. IFE, for its part, is engaged in a $57 million
capital campaign that is supported by corporate sponsors, private
foundations and the State of Connecticut through a generous grant and
bond issue. Any federal funding we might get is dedicated to
programming and is matched by private donations.
There is no greater challenge than preparing for the future. It is
our responsibility to leave our children with a sound environment and a
good education. The NURP-JASON-IFE partnership furthers those
objectives. By investing in National Undersea Research Program and the
vital scientific work this program performs, we create the knowledge
base and the tools we need to understand our greatest natural
resource--the oceans. By investing in the education of our nation's
young people, we give the next generation of Americans the means to
solve whatever problems they might confront. By wedding the two
programs into an ongoing partnership, we strengthen both and create a
synergy that will pay many dividends for oceanography and for
education.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Christian Andreasen
My name is Christian Andreasen, Rear Admiral, NOAA retired, and I
am the past President, 1992-1997 (internationally elected) of the
Directing Committee for the International Hydrographic Organization
(IHO), an intergovernmental scientific and technical organization
consisting of 64 member governments working to support safety of
navigation and the protection of the marine environment. The IHO
coordinates the activities of worldwide national hydrographic offices,
works towards uniformity in nautical chart documents, develops
international standards for marine surveys and charting and coordinates
with many national and international organizations with related marine
interests. It is my pleasure to provide my views on the future of the
Commissioned Officer Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Corps).
noaa corps
As part of the National Performance Review the Administration sent
a proposal to disestablish the NOAA Corps to Congress on May 22, 1997.
Should this proposal be adopted, a uniformed service that is vital to
NOAA programs, and in turn to the nation, would be dissolved.
Dissolution would further mark the first elimination of a uniformed
service in our nation's history. Equally disturbing is the real
potential for the loss of the many very talented and dedicated
officers, who in some cases, have talents not available elsewhere. A
full inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposal,
including activities that have taken place since dissolution was first
proposed, will reflect that the basic tenets of the dissolution
proposal are simply not supportable.
background
Today's NOAA Corps, a direct descendant of the commissioned service
of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, is distinctively
designed to meet the operational needs of NOAA (ships, aircraft and
mobile duty) and to respond quickly to the emergent requirements of the
nation. It is the nation's only commissioned environmental service and
is the only uniformed service that requires every officer to have a
college degree in science or engineering prior to being commissioned.
The NOAA Corps' rotational system provides NOAA with officers who
are multifaceted. In this respect, officers typically serve within
multiple line components, similar to the Department of Defense's joint
service commands. This multiplicity of assignments results in officers
who are experienced in many parts of NOAA, as well as extremely
dedicated and loyal to NOAA and the Nation. The NOAA Corps talent pool
has contributed significantly, not only to NOAA, but to other agencies,
as well as to the international community. Examples are numerous,
including several past presidents of the International Hydrographic
Organization, fellows in the American Geophysical Union, and past
presidents of various sections of prestigious scientific and
professional societies. The Corps' officers are acknowledged world
experts in the areas of geodesy, photogrammetry, and hydrography and
are the only pilots experienced in penetrating hurricanes at the low
altitude required for research purposes. The success of the NOAA Corps'
personnel system can be seen as a virtual replica of the system
recommended in a 1996 Brookings Institution publication ``Civil Service
Reform--Building a Government that Works.'' The Corps has served NOAA
and the nation very well, and should continue to do so through the 21st
century.
national interests
There are significant national interests, to include environmental
safety and potential national security implications that must be
carefully examined and considered in evaluating any proposal to disband
the NOAA Corps.
NOAA Corps officers are subject to a legislative transfer provision
whereby the Corps' officers, ships, and equipment can be transferred
immediately to the armed services in time of war or national emergency,
as was done in World War II. More recently Corps officers have served,
or are serving, in interface assignments with the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency, Oceanographer of the Navy, Naval Meteorology and
Oceanography Command, and with various foreign offices. NOAA Corps
officers also serve on the staff of the commanders of various U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG) Districts and provide support to the USCG in matters
of hazardous material spills in a marine environment. Recently,
officers have been assigned to the U.S. Army's Directorate of Combat
Development and the U.S. Naval Academy, as experts in surveying
procedures. The NOAA Corps and fleet also participate in Marine Defense
Zone (MARDEZ) operations under the direction of the USCG.
environmental threats
Today's threat moves beyond the Cold War definition of the United
States' strategic interests and includes environmental threats. To
many, the NOAA Corps is viewed as the nation's environmental service.
The NOAA Corps and NOAA fleet have provided significant resources
during numerous national emergencies. For example, when the Exxon
Valdez oil spill occurred in Alaska, NOAA Corps officers, working in
conjunction with the USCG and Naval units, conducted numerous air,
ship, and land based environmental surveys within Prince William Sound.
NOAA Corps officers are the only group of uniformed federal
hydrographers in the nation and are responsible for NOAA's highly
regarded nautical charts. With 98 percent of this nation's
international trade traveling by ship, it is of vital interest to
maximize both safety and economics. The loss of this hydrographic
expertise, resident within the NOAA Corps, could jeopardize the benefit
the nation enjoys through these very accurate charts. A poignant
example of the importance of the NOAA Corps' hydrographic expertise is
a recent U.S. District Court decision regarding a $52 million suit
against the United States. The case relates to the grounding of an oil
tanker on a rock in Alaska in 1987 and the resultant spilling of
100,000 gallons of oil during the salmon season. The owner of the oil
taker asserted that the cause of the grounding was an uncharted rock
not depicted on a nautical chart. As recognized by Mr. R. Mike
Underhill, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice Torts Branch, in a
letter to Commerce Secretary Daley, the decision and findings in the
government's favor were largely due to the hydrographic expertise
resident in the NOAA Corps, who collected the data, managed chart
production and served as expert witnesses.
NOAA Corps aviators operate NOAA's specialized research aircraft
for hurricane research and reconnaissance, snow surveys for prediction
of spring floods, marine mammal surveys, and aeronautical and nautical
charting. Snow survey aircraft collect critical data on snowpack depth,
that is not obtainable from satellite imagery, are used for the
prediction of spring floods and for the management of water resources
for agricultural and western cities. Hurricane reconnaissance and
research aircraft collect data vital to accurately predicting storm
landfall. To qualify as a hurricane aircraft commander, NOAA aviators
undergo 3-5 years of low-level hurricane penetration training, in
addition to prerequisite heavy aircraft training. Although the United
States Air Force supports NOAA with high-altitude hurricane
reconnaissance, they are not trained to fly the more dangerous, low-
level research penetrations and, unlike the NOAA Corps operated
aircraft, are prohibited from flying over Cuban airspace.
Any purported marginal savings realized through eliminating the
Commissioned Corps, which I believe are nonexistent, would be more than
offset by the loss of the NOAA Corps' capacity for rapid response to
prevent catastrophic environmental accidents, such as the grounding of
an oil tanker on an uncharted rock, inability to forecast the landfall
zone of an approaching hurricane, or lack of data to predict flooding
or manage water resources properly.
recent national emergencies
NOAA Corps officers served with the armed forces during both
Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. The NOAA Corps
provided ship and technical expertise for environmental appraisal, and
the first comprehensive environmental study of the Persian Gulf. NOAA
Corps officers ashore provided scientific expertise in hazardous
materials management, leading shore parties, and conducting surveys of
oil related damage to beaches and tidal areas.
A more recent example of the vital importance of the NOAA Corps is
the NOAA Ship Rude, which located the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 within
24 hours of the crash. The Rude and a shore component composed of NOAA
Corps officers, created highly detailed mapping products that greatly
facilitated the retrieval of the wreckage of the plane. The NOAA Corps'
talent and efforts in this regard were specifically noted in public
ceremonies commending the officers involved, by both the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of Transportation.
public and private sector endorsements
The programmatic and economic contributions of the NOAA Corps are
becoming increasingly recognized. This is evidence by the large number
of associations and international groups writing to the administration
and the Congress expressing strong opposition to the disestablishment
of the NOAA Corps. A partial list includes the Harbor Pilots
Associations from Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia;
Southeast Alaska, and the Northeast U.S.; the International
Hydrographic Bureau, the Center for Marine Conservation, American
Oceans Campaign, EARTHJUSTICE (Sierra Club) Legal Defense Fund and
Scenic America.
cost savings
The asserted cost savings from eliminating the NOAA Corps, simply
stated, are nonexistent. The asserted basis for dissolution began with
the mistaken belief that savings could be garnered through dissolution.
The original proposal to eliminate the NOAA Corps was, however, as has
now been clearly established by cost studies subsequently commissioned
by the Commerce Department, not based on a thorough economic analysis.
When the NOAA administrator announced his intention to eliminate
the NOAA Corps, a GAO study requested by Representative Kasich was
underway and nearing completion. The only cost study available at the
time of the administration's announcement, however, showed that the
NOAA Corps was actually less costly than an equivalent civil service
work force. This study, prepared by Arthur Andersen & Company, under a
contract initiated by the Under Secretary of Commerce's office, showed
that the NOAA Corps was less expensive than its civilian counterpart.
Subsequently, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released its report
(GAOGGO9710, ``Federal Personnel Issues: Issues on the Need for NOAA's
Commissioned Corps'') and found: ``that using civilian employees to
carry out the Corps' current functions could result in limited
savings''.
Following both the Arthur Anderson & the GAO Report, the accounting
firm of Hays Huggins, revised their annual estimate of the incurred
unfunded retirement liability, using the latest cost figures in lieu of
an earlier estimate that they had provided to Arthur Anderson and the
GAO. These latest figures found the NOAA Corps to be cheaper in all
aspects than their civilian counterparts. In terms of operations (i.e.,
ships and aircraft) NOAA Corps officers are at least $2 million per
year less expensive.
I believe the Committee will be well served by thoroughly reviewing
all aspects of the proposal to disestablish the NOAA Corps. The
proposal is not based on either economic or programmatic
considerations, but a political calling.
Two documents are attached as enclosures (1) and (2). These
documents clearly indicate the administration's knowledge that there
are no cost savings to be incurred through dissolution and that the
NOAA Corps capacity for movement and relocation on short notice would
be lost. These documents also reflect the basis for the misplaced
recommendation to dissolve the NOAA Corps.
The first document (enclosure (1)) is a U.S. Department of Commerce
document entitled, ``REGO II Options,'' or Reinventing Government II
Options, which was used as briefing material for Vice President Gore in
April 1995. Included in this document is the following statement: ``* *
* termination of a uniformed service would be highly visible with
significant political appeal.''
Enclosure (2) is a memorandum dated February 16, 1995, for the
Deputy Secretary, United States Department of Commerce, from the
Administrator of NOAA addressing REGO II. One of the enclosures to this
memorandum discusses the pros and cons for elimination of the NOAA
Corps. To briefly paraphrase:
PROS for elimination: ``* * * termination of a uniformed service
would be highly visible with significant political appeal'' CONS for
elimination: ``NOAA Corps provides an easily adaptable personnel force
that can respond to changing NOAA personnel needs more quickly than a
civilian workforce. The capacity for movement and relocation on short
notice at little or no additional cost to NOAA would be lost.'' ``The
cost of operating the NOAA Corps are comparable to the cost of
equivalent civil service personnel so that would not be significant
cost savings.'' ``NOAA Corps officers perform duties that are critical
to achieving NOAA's mission, such as conducting onboard, realtime
oceanographic, environmental, mapping and charting, and living marine
research programs. In addition, between 40 and 50 NOAA Corps personnel
provide the backbone of NOAA's nautical charting and geodetic service
functions. Elimination of the Corps would make vulnerable the critical
functions performed by these officers * * *.''
summary
In summary, for no increase in costs, the NOAA Corps provides the
nation with a cadre of highly professional and dedicated women and men
who serve in a multitude of ways. Any proposal to eliminate the
Commissioned Corps must carefully examine the potential risks to the
nation from the loss of the Corps and its unique technical expertise.
Dissolution should not be permitted to proceed without a verifiable
plan for how NOAA plans to continue providing services to the nation,
such as nautical charting and hurricane research, without added cost to
the taxpayer. This plan should be especially specific in the area of
hydrographic surveys, where private contractors may not accept
liability for their surveys, or agree to conduct surveys in remote
areas such as Alaska or in times of national emergency with the other
uniformed services.
If all the costs of elimination are fairly considered, there is a
significant savings in keeping the NOAA Corps that has served the
nation faithfully for decades. Clearly, the potential cost savings from
eliminating the NOAA Corps is nonexistent and the shortsighted basis
for elimination of the NOAA Corps could have an adverse effect on the
environment, as well as potentially impair our national security in
time of crisis.
Without the NOAA Corps, the nation will suffer over the long run.
At some point in the future when we again find we need the NOAA Corps,
it will take years to rebuild it, at an even higher cost, perhaps at
the cost of lives. In short, the outstanding service the NOAA Corps
provides to the nation and the fact that there will be no savings in
its dissolution must lead to the retention of the NOAA Commissioned
Corps.
______
Prepared Statement of John D. Bossler
My name is John D. Bossler, Rear Admiral, NOAA (Ret.). I would like
to focus my testimony on the difficulty the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, will have replacing the
commissioned officers of the NOAA Corps with civilian employees, and
the potential negative effects of such replacement, if a dissolution
plan for the NOAA Corps (e.g., S. 877) is passed.
This plan stresses that the positions presently held by NOAA Corps
officers will be filled by civilian employees with equivalent
qualifications. An important specific issue facing NOAA, however,
revolves around the dual role played by its commissioned officers in
managing and navigating its ships (a Wage Marine (WM) role) and
actually managing and conducting data collection operations (a General
Schedule (GS) role).
This dual role applies to both the fishery research ships and the
oceanographic ships of the NOAA fleet, as well as the aviation program,
but in my area of expertise it is probably most critical in the
nautical charting program. Therefore, my comments are primarily
directed to the charting program.
The dual ``hatting'' of officers in the field of hydrography has
been described quite clearly by Rear Admiral Andreasen, past president
of the International Hydrographic Bureau Directing Committee,
International Hydrographic Organization. Admiral Andreasen pointed out
that ``The great majority of governments conducting this work worldwide
do so through uniformed service personnel, and I believe for good
reason.'' There is a reason for that is, as Captain Whitemarsh S.
Smith, III, President, Charleston Branch Pilots' Association, has
indicated, that they * * * ``fail to see where the creation of two
separate cadres, one of ship drivers and one of hydrographers, would
match the present efficient, responsive, multi-purpose resources and
still yield a product that is mariner-friendly.'' Finally, Senator John
Kerry (D-MA) has also spoke at some length about the tangible, and to
some extent intangible, benefits to NOAA's programs of a uniformed
service career system.
The quality gained in the surveys and charts as a result of having
commissioned officers as professional mariners involved in chart
production ashore, as well as directly involved in the data collection
at sea, is invaluable. The only type of personnel system that is
presently capable of efficiently engaging the seagoing side of this
equation and the shore side is the uniformed service personnel system.
Much of the difficulty NOAA will face in emulating the uniformed
service's dual role in a civilian service is inherent within the
federal civilian personnel systems, General Schedule (a competitive
service), and Wage Marine (an excepted service). To replace its
commissioned officers, NOAA will be required to work within these
personnel systems. The crux of the problem NOAA will face is that in
both of the civilian systems, the grade and pay resides in the position
itself, not in the individual. An individual is appointed to a specific
position. If the duties of the position change significantly, the
position must be reclassified. If the individual changes positions, he
must accept the grade and pay of the new position. In a uniformed
service, grade and pay reside in the individual officers through their
commissions, not in the position. A change of position or duties does
not, therefore, result in a change in pay or grade. The uniformed
system is, thus, very responsive to periodic changes in assignment, in
particular between shore and ship and on-board ship.
NOAA will encounter difficulties when it attempts to merge the two
civilian personnel systems--to recreate what the administration already
has in the NOAA Corps. The duties of a merged position are simply not
conducive to classification under either single system. For example,
the commanding officer of a NOAA ship fills two equivalent civilian
functions, WM master and GS chief of survey party. To attempt to
classify this merged position under either system alone is virtually
impossible without creating a whole new classification and pay system.
Both WM master and GS chief of survey party are professional positions
in their own fields, requiring many years of experience and
certification or licensing from the respective controlling authorities.
The commissioned officer is a professional in both of these occupations
because he or she rotates from land-based position, as a professional
hydrographer, to a ship-based position, as the commanding officer or
master. The experiences gained in their career at sea serves the
individual officers and the organization well when they are assigned to
management level positions in the hydrographic office. The converse of
this is true as well, with rotating officers taking to sea with them
the untold needs of the charting program.
These commissioned officers are not thus qualified because every
one of them is in the 99th percentile. It is simply because the
uniformed service personnel system allows career development along both
paths with no detrimental effects to an individual due to service in
one area versus service in the other, i.e., time at sea weighs equally
with time ashore in the program area.
While technically it is possible under the Federal Personnel
regulations to rotate shoreside GS hydrographic personnel to sea for
short periods of temporary duty, it is technically improbable, if not
impossible, to gain sufficient experience as a mariner to satisfy the
U.S. Coast Guard's requirements for a merchant seaman's license, given
the constraints discussed previously. This is because without
significant changes in the GS and/or WM personnel and pay systems it is
not possible to spend long periods at sea without an individual's pay
or shoreside career advancement suffering.
Similarly, while it may be possible to rotate WM personnel ashore
for short periods, it would, again, be technically and professionally
improbable to gain sufficient experience to qualify to any professional
extent for any program management level positions in the charting
program.
In summary, there are no civilian job descriptions, such as NOAA
assumes in its dissolution plan, that are fully equivalent to the
duties of the NOAA Corps. To provide the same services, NOAA Corps
billets at sea must be divided between civilian GS and WM personnel.
When the functions are split, a grade suitable for the required
knowledge and responsibility of each function is necessary.
The point, and this is ironic, is that these WM and GS employees
are not interchangeable, as NOAA Corps officers are--yet it is the
Corps that NOAA, ostensibly in the name of cost-efficiency, intends to
dissolve. Although NOAA indicates that it hopes to be able to use the
GS and WM employees interchangeably, it is not possible unless a new
employee classification and pay system is created. This system would be
similar to that which supports the NOAA Commissioned Officer today.
______
Prepared Statement of Capt. Fred R. Becker, Jr., Director, Navy
Affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States
My name is Fred R. Becker, Jr. I am the Director, Naval Affairs of
the Reserve Officers Association of the United States. I would like to
limit my testimony to the cost studies that have been conducted with
regard to the administration's proposal to dissolve the Commissioned
Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Much has been made of the purported cost savings to be achieved by
dissolution. A full and complete review of all the cost studies,
however, clearly reflects that no real savings will achieved. In this
respect, the dissolution plan forwarded to the Congress by the
administration reflects cost savings that are, simply stated, non-
existent. In fact, the cost of dissolution, as will be discussed in
detail, will exceed $26 million over 5 years. More importantly, there
will no real cost savings even in the outyears, as dissolution of the
NOAA Corps will increase the operating costs of NOAA's' ships and
aircraft by over $2 million annually as a result of civilianization.
The 1990 Commerce Department Inspector General report, that first
asserted that there would be savings through dissolution of the NOAA
Corps, has been largely discredited by three more recent cost studies
that I shall later discuss in detail. As to the former Inspector
General's report, the fault lies in the fact that his report focuses on
the civilianization of only a portion of the shore side positions and
ignores the clearly more expensive civilianization of the sea-side and
aviation positions, where significant overtime costs are routinely
incurred. In addition, the former Inspector General report does not
attempt to grade each position by its responsibilities. For example,
the report equates all captain positions to GS-14's, although many
captain positions in the NOAA Corps have supervisory responsibilities
equal to that of GS-15's or senior executive service positions. The
former Inspector General report further incorrectly incorporates, as a
cost of current operations, the annual payment of retired pay to
formerly retired NOAA Corps officers, as opposed to the annual retired
pay liability for those officers currently on active duty. In addition,
there are a number of other irregularities in the former Inspector
General's report. The later studies by Arthur Andersen and Company, the
General Accounting Office (GAO), and Hay Huggins correct all these
deficiencies.
In January 1996, at the time the NOAA administrator announced his
intention to eliminate the NOAA Corps, the only cost study available,
conducted by Arthur Andersen and Company, showed that the NOAA Corps
was actually less costly than an equivalent civilian work force.
Specifically, the Arthur Andersen study, commissioned by the Department
of Commerce, found that the NOAA Corps was about $500,000 less
expensive annually than its civilian counterpart. Subsequently, the GAO
released its report (GAO-GGD-97-10, ``Federal Personnel Issues: Issues
on the Need for NOAA's Commissioned Corps'') that stated: ``* * * that
using civilian employees to carry out the Corps' current functions
would result in limited saving''. Referring to the Arthur Andersen
study, the GAO report asserts that, when the estimated federal income
tax benefits of Commissioned Corps officers are considered, the
government would realize net savings of an estimated $661,000 by
employing civilians. The GAO report also states: ``If the Corps were to
be converted to civilian employment, the actual net cost reduction
could vary depending on various factors * * *. It must also be
recognized that, because the Corps is now smaller than it was in the
period (in which the report was conducted) and further reductions are
anticipated, any savings available from civilianizing the Corps in the
future would be reduced accordingly.''
At the time the GAO study was conducted the NOAA Corps strength was
384 officers. The size of the NOAA Corps as of January 31, 1998, is,
however, 262 and is not anticipated to exceed 299, even if the current
hiring freeze, unilaterally imposed by administration over 3 years ago,
is lifted. Therefore, the projected savings set forth in the GAO report
have been markedly reduced. In addition, both Arthur Andersen and GAO
fail to include overtime pay for aviation personnel. Increased moving
expenses for civilians, included in the Arthur Andersen study, are also
not considered in the GAO report. Lastly, both GAO and Arthur Andersen
underestimate the contributions that would have to be made by the
federal government to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)
were the NOAA Corps to be civilianized.
The most recent study, by Hay/Huggins, also commissioned by the
Commerce Department, includes a review of the previous studies
conducted by Arthur Andersen and the GAO. Hay Huggins finds that the
cost of operating either a civilian or military personnel system are
identical ($27.9 million). The Hay Huggins study, however, notes that
the separation of those officers who do not have a vested right to
retirement, some possibly within as little as one month of vesting,
would save approximately $2 million annually. Such ``firing before
vesting'' savings would occur in any case where an individual is fired
before his or her retirement account becomes vested. Furthermore, to
suggest that such ``firing before vesting'' savings are, in reality, a
savings to the taxpayer is unconscionable.
The administration's dissolution plan, forwarded to the Congress in
May of 1997 attaches, as an appendix, the Hay Huggins report. The only
savings found by Hay Huggins are, however, those that relate to
``firing before vesting.'' Consequently, Hay Huggins does not support
the other cost savings set forth in the administration's plan, wherein
it is asserted that there will be savings over the next 5 years of $24
million, or $4.9 million per year. Specific examples of the
inaccuracies in the administration's plan not supported by Hay Huggins
are: the inclusion of streamlining savings that have already occurred;
an underestimation of the increase in salaries and benefits that will
be accrued by civilianization; the inclusion of nonexistent savings
based on assumptions regarding the retirement account liability for
future work of those officers who would be involuntarily retired; a
comparison of the NOAA Corps' current cost of operations (that has been
increased by $3 million annually solely as a result of the current
administration directed hiring freeze) to civilian positions that are
not equivalent to those of NOAA Corps officers; and the transference of
retiree health and dental costs to the Department of Defense. Each of
the foregoing items is addressed below.
Streamlining Savings
The administration's plan includes $6 million per year, or $36
million total, in savings over 6 years (1997 to 2002) from
``Streamlining Corps personnel from 415 to 299'' (Table 1). This
reduction in personnel had, however, already occurred prior to the
administration's submission of its plan to the Congress. As a result,
these streamlining savings have already been achieved and should not be
considered in any cost calculations. Furthermore, if only the $36
million in nonexistent streamlining savings are omitted from Table 1,
wherein it is asserted that there will be $24.6 million in costs
savings over 5 years, it becomes readily apparent that disestablishment
will in fact be more, not less expensive, over the next 5 years--in
fact by nearly $12 million (See Tab A).
Increased Salaries and Benefits Due to Civilianization
As also reflected in Table 1 of the plan, the administration
calculates an ``increase in salaries/benefits under a civilian
system,'' as opposed to a uniformed system, of $2.54 million per year,
or $12.7 million over 5 years (1998 to 2002). The $2.54 million
increase in salaries/benefits under a civilian system is, however,
based on the annualized salary cost of $20.327 million for the 299
officers in the NOAA Corps in March 1997. In March 1997, however, the
NOAA Corps had no ensigns. As a result, the Corps March 1997 costs are
inflated by approximately $3 million, solely as a result of the
administration's hiring freeze. The increased costs through
civilianization, as reflected in Table 1, should therefore, be
approximately $3 million more on an annual basis than that estimated in
the administration's plan--for a total of $5.54 million per year, based
on the actual increased costs incurred in civilianizing 299 positions
(See, Tab A).
Attached at Tab A is Table 1 to the administration's plan, modified
to reflect the previously discussed changes in outlays, savings and
receipts. Changes that have been made to Table 1 are reflected in bold
type, with the administration's original figures shown in parenthesis.
Based on the foregoing and as reflected in Tab A, the actual changes in
outlays, savings, and receipts is, therefore, an increase of $26.367
million in outlays over 5 years, not a savings of $24.633 million.
Other Irregularities
The administration's plan also includes other irregularities. Table
2 (One Time Costs and Savings of Disestablishment Legislation)
incorrectly includes, in the $80.4 million ``Savings in Retirement''
column, $52 million based on assumptions regarding the retirement
account liability for future work of those officers who would be
involuntarily retired. No similar costs are, however, included for
future work under a civilianized system. In addition, the $20.327
million ``grade 01 to 10 (payroll),'' as reflected in Table 1-A, is
based on the annualized cost for the 299 officers in the NOAA Corps in
March 1997--inflated by approximately $3 million annually strictly as a
result of the hiring freeze, as previously discussed. Furthermore, in
comparing the salaries and benefits of a civilianized, as opposed to
uniformed corps, system, Table 1-A reflects a total cost of $24.187
million of civilian positions, calculated through estimation as opposed
to desk audit or formal classification of civilian positions. Finally,
the administration's plan does not include the $2 million annual cost
that is transferred to the Department of Defense for the health and
dental care of NOAA Corps retirees.
In summary, in the examination of costs there are three issues: pay
and benefits, retirement and overtime costs, and the unfunded liability
of the NOAA Corps' retirement system. As to pay and benefits, the
following chart reflects that the cost studies show there is virtually
no difference in the pay and benefits of a uniformed and civilianized
system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian
Study NOAA Corps Workforce Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Andersen & Co. (384 positions)........................... $29,708,000 $30,281,000 ($573,000)
(-2 percent)
General Accounting Office (384 positions)....................... 30,942,000 30,281,000 661,000
(+2 percent)
Hay/Huggins, Inc. (333 positions)............................... 27,954,000 27,953,000 1,000
(0 percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the following chart, taken from Tables 7 and 8 of the
Hay Huggins report, reflects that the NOAA Corps' higher retirement
costs are virtually totally offset by the increased costs in overtime
incurred by a civilianized system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian
Cost NOAA Corps Workforce Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement..................................................... $5,326,000 $2,941,000 $2,385,000
Overtime and Specialty Pays.................................... 667,000 3,001,000 (2,334,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding the unfunded liability of the retirement
account, Hay Huggins notes that if you involuntarily separate those
officers who have not reached retirement eligibility, some possibly
within as little as one month of vesting, there would there be a
reduction in unfunded liability of $2 million annually. Such saving
would, however, be incurred in any case where an individual is fired
before his or her retirement account becomes vested. In this respect, I
sincerely hope that this Committee understands that the purported
savings set forth by the administration's plan are not the result of a
more efficient way to do business, but by betraying the bona fide
expectations of officers who they took their oaths of office and
voluntarily agreed to serve their country.
______
Prepared Statement of Cyrus M. Jollivette, Vice President for
Government Relations, University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to
submit testimony on behalf of the University of Miami and Florida State
University. Both of the institutions have long enjoyed your support,
and my colleagues in Florida are deeply appreciative of your
leadership, Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee's confidence. At no time
in the past have you and your colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee faced more difficult constraints. Yet, I am certain that you
will continue to make the difficult choices with the best interests of
the nation guiding your decisions. My colleagues and I hope that you
will find it possible to fund the important initiatives detailed below
in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations cycle.
On behalf of the University of Miami and Florida State University
jointly I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your affirmative response to
the Florida Delegation's earlier requests concerning The Florida
Consortium for Climatic Research, a project involving the University of
Miami, Florida State University, the University of Florida, and the
University of South Florida.
The importance of El Nino South Oscillation (ENSO) events as a
major source of climate fluctuations, together with advances in ENSO
predictability, suggest that forecasts have significant potential for
benefitting agricultural productivity and economic decision-making. For
fiscal year 1999, we seek $3 million for the Florida Regional
Application Center.
The geographic focus of the project will include the southeastern
U.S., a large food producer whose productivity is significantly
impacted by weather conditions generated by the ENSO phenomenon.
Decisions made by well-informed participants from farm to policy level,
made several months or seasons in advance, can significantly benefit
productivity.
This project presents an end-to-end approach that will provide the
bridge between climate and forecast producers, such as the recently-
formed International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRICP),
and agricultural decision makers. Specific objectives for the project
are to: (1) adapt, develop, and evaluate a generic, flexible set of
tools and methodologies for assessing regional agricultural
consequences of El Nino events and for applying forecasts to improve
agricultural decision-making; (2) demonstrate by successful
applications of forecasts to agriculture and other sectors which would
benefit best in the southeastern United States that began in 1996; and
(3) assess the value of climate predictions to different agricultural
sectors in these southeastern region.
The Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the
University of Miami is one of the premier academic, oceanographic
research facilities in the world. Located on a 16-acre facility on
Miami's Virginia Key in Biscayne Bay, the Rosenstiel School offers the
only subtropical marine research base in the continental United States.
With the Gulf Stream off shore, a vast expanse of living coral reefs
just to the south, and the Florida-Bahamas Carbonate Platform to the
east, the campus is surrounded by a unique marine laboratory.
My colleagues at the Rosenstiel School, 90 well-published and
broadly talented Ph.D. scientists who work in close collaboration with
other scientists--in Florida and across our region--are uniquely
qualified to conduct valuable research in their fields. On their behalf
I bring the following three projects to the attention of and
respectfully request the endorsement of the Subcommittee for these
projects through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration.
On behalf of the University of Miami I seek your support for a
Southeast Region Consortium for Coral Reef Research. Local changes in
water quality, broader scale environmental changes potentially related
to global climate change, and fisheries over-exploitation of coral reef
ecosystems, are thought to be contributing to deterioration of coral
reefs world-wide. Scientists are hampered in helping government make
critical and socially difficult management decisions by our rudimentary
understanding of coral reef ecosystem processes. Coral reef
environmental research has historically been piece-meal and under
funded, with few attempts at true interdisciplinary process-oriented
research.
The purpose for establishing a Southeast Consortium for Coral Reef
Research is to foster greater organization and collaboration within the
U.S. scientific community, to lead the development of a new level of
understanding of the processes and environmental conditions necessary
for the establishment, survival, and sustainable use of coral reef
ecosystems, and to assist in the transfer of this information to
managers and the general public.
The initial focus of the Consortium would be to address problems
faced by coral reef ecosystems in Florida and U.S. possessions in the
Caribbean region (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), and also to
coordinate these efforts with those of coral reef researchers within
the Caribbean region, in recognition of the larger scale relationships
between coral reef systems with the Inter-America Seas, and to the
benefit of the whole region.
This Consortium would invite partnership with regional academic
institutions with expertise and interest in coral reef research, such
as the Florida Institute of Oceanography; the Nova Oceanographic
Institution; the University of South Florida, the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington's Florida Keys Research program; the Mote Marine
Laboratory; the University of Georgia; the College of Charleston; and
others as researchers from elsewhere in the nation working in the
region. Further, it is anticipated that several state of Florida and
Federal agencies with coral reef research interests such as the Florida
Institute of Marine Science, the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, the EPA and the USGS are anticipated members of the
Southeast Consortium for Coral Reef Research.
The Southeast Consortium for Oceanographic Research (SECOR) was
established in 1988 and is comprised of three universities--the
University of Miami, Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas.
Additionally, in 1996, the NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory joined SECOR as an associate member. The
broad goal of SECOR is to foster closer relationships between the major
marine science groups in the southeastern United States for the purpose
of promoting the most efficient use and operation of oceanographic
research facilities.
The University of Southern Mississippi is seeking support for
construction of an intermediate class research vessel which it proposes
to be operated by SECOR as a new regionally-based oceanography ship in
cooperation with NOAA, NSF, and ONR as part of UNOLS, the University
National Oceanographic Laboratory System. Research trends over the past
five years as well as national needs make the Gulf Coast and Caribbean
areas of great opportunity. Such a vessel could fill the need for a
sub-intermediate class ship, capable of working on oceanographic
projects on the continental shelf and offshore waters, as well as
conducting National Marine Fisheries Service fishery stock assessment
surveys.
The institutional members of SECOR enthusiastically support the
proposal by the University of Southern Mississippi Institute of Marine
Sciences for construction of a Class III (approximately 190-foot)
vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. A new fishery-oceanographic research ship
with the capability to conduct complex, interdisciplinary research in
shallow water regions of the Gulf Coast and Inter-American Seas is
vitally needed in the region.
The worldwide oceanographic community is working to develop the
Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) as a vehicle for providing regular
observations to document climate variability and global change in
support of the Rio Treaty; and to support marine operations such as
safe navigation, fisheries management, ocean pollution control, and
search and rescue activities. GOOS already has begun to implement these
activities in Europe and Asia. Now is the time for the U.S. to move
ahead in cooperation with Mexico and other Latin American and Caribbean
nations with the initiation of a regional GOOS, the Inter-American
Regional Control Global Ocean Observing System (IAS-GOOS).
Modern marine operations have a common need for a regular program
of remote oceanographic and atmospheric observations. These
observations must be synthesized with computer models to provide
predictions and products that can be applied to fisheries management
and ocean pollution control. The Rosenstiel School's proposed plan
includes a five-year research and demonstration phase, and includes
partnering activities with regional NOAA laboratories.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Audubon Society, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations, North Carolina Sierra Club,
Fish Unlimited, National Fishing Association, Coastal Waters Project,
Gulf Restoration Network, Cape Arago Audubon Society Coos Bay, Idaho
Watersheds Project, Fish Forever
These comments address the Administration's Proposed fiscal year
1999 Budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department
of Commerce. They are submitted for your consideration on behalf of the
undersigned conservation and fishing organizations. Our organizations
and members are increasingly concerned about the continuing decline in
populations of the nation's marine fishery resources, which is
recognized to be due primarily to excessive fishing pressure and a
nationwide loss and degradation of habitats that are essential to their
survival. Such population declines have devastated coastal fishing
communities, dramatically reduced the supply of one of the nation's
highest quality sources of protein, resulted in the loss of tens of
thousands of jobs, eliminated millions of dollars in state and federal
tax revenues, and adversely affected the quality of the recreational
fishing experience and the catch for a large part of the nation's 17
million marine sport fishing enthusiasts.
The undersigned organizations oppose the Administration's proposed
transfer of NMFS' Beaufort, NC, and Oxford, MD, Laboratories to NOAA's
National Ocean Service (NOS). The Administration's proposed adjustment
to NMFS' base funding of $2.24 million, by transferring these two NMFS
laboratories and their scientific staffs would decrease, not
strengthen, NOAA's ability to protect coastal environmental quality. It
would seriously weaken NMFS' ability to carry out its mission--``to act
as the federal steward for the nation's living marine resources''--by
eliminating its primary scientific expertise, and thus its credibility,
in coastal and estuarine ecology. Such an elimination is nationally
important because NMFS is the only federal agency with a legislative
mandate to be involved on behalf of living marine resources in all
federal decisions on proposed projects affecting them or their
habitats, nationwide. Each year, such decisions involve about 20,000
federal water resource development projects and federal authorizations
of projects (through permits, leases or licenses) that would affect
hundreds of thousands of acres of important habitat. Cumulatively, the
outcome of these decisions determines the health of the nation's
coastal environmental quality and the abundance of most populations of
living marine resources. NOS has no legislative mandate for or role in
such decision-making, and it lacks the necessary scientific expertise
to become involved. Moreover, this proposed transfer of NMFS scientific
expertise to NOS will substantially weaken NMFS' ability to fulfill the
new stewardship requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to rebuild
overfished stocks and protect essential habitat.
The transfer of these two laboratories and their staffs is being
proposed as a means to develop a science capability within NOS and as
one way to consolidate NOAA's coastal environmental stewardship
activities in a single NOAA line organization. Such a transfer saves
the taxpayer nothing since it is only a change in administration within
NOAA. Affected NMFS laboratory directors see it as a potential means of
finally obtaining full funding. NMFS has historically refused to
provide its habitat-related research programs with more than half their
needed funding, on average, forcing the laboratory directors to
obligate their staffs to other organizations' priorities in return for
reimbursable funds to support salaries and operations. This has reduced
their involvement in and value to the Habitat Program's primary mission
activities conducted under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA). This problem would be eliminated if NOAA provided NMFS with
sufficient base funds to conduct its Habitat Program activities.
Transfer of the Beaufort and Oxford Laboratories to NOS would
eliminate NMFS' primary center of scientific expertise in inshore
marine and estuarine ecology, fish disease and pathology, wetlands and
seagrass functions and value, and understanding the importance of
coastal and inshore habitats and ecosystems in sustaining healthy
marine fishery populations. NMFS' Habitat Program consists of a total
of about 400 scientists and support staff (located in 11 NMFS
laboratories, all Regions and Fishery Science Centers and NMFS
headquarters) having a combined budget of about $20 million per year.
The transfer would strip such expertise from NMFS' Habitat Conservation
Program, weakening it further in the process, and denying it direct
access to the scientific involvement and credibility that for the past
25 years has been one of the most valuable parts of the agency's
ability to defend the interests of living marine resources in all
federal agency decision-making on proposed projects that would
adversely affect it. It will seriously reduce NMFS' ability to protect
such habitats from physical alterations, water diversions, contaminant
introductions and nutrient over-enrichment, which are the four primary
threats to habitats important to living marine resources. By
eliminating its core expertise in wetlands science, transfer of these
two laboratories to NOS would also eliminate NMFS' capability to
effectively restore degraded habitats and ecosystems under its habitat
restoration program and its damage assessment authorities.
Transfer of these laboratories to NOS would completely isolate
these valuable scientists from any meaningful role in federal decision-
making processes affecting coastal environmental quality. NMFS is the
only component of NOAA and in fact the only agency that has a
legislative mandate to act as the federal steward for the nation's
living marine resources. This is provided by the Fish and Wildlife Act
of 1956. In addition, under authority of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, any federal agency that proposes to build or
authorize others to build (through permit, lease or license) any
project that might adversely affect any habitats that are important to
living marine resources (throughout their range), must first consult
with NMFS to obtain its views. (These authorities were transferred to
NMFS when it was created from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and moved to the Dept. of Commerce when
NOAA was created in 1970.) Thus, NMFS is the only federal agency having
the authority to represent the interests of living marine resources in
all federal agency decision-making affecting them, the cumulative
effects of which determines the nation's coastal ecosystem health and,
to a great degree, the potential future abundance of most marine fish
populations.
Loss of this valuable ecological research component would deprive
NMFS (and NOAA) of its ability to actively protect habitats and coastal
ecosystem health upon which an estimated 75 percent of the nation's
commercial fishery resources and 80 to 90 percent of its marine
recreational fishery resources are dependent for spawning, nursery and
feeding areas or as migratory pathways. Loss by NMFS' Habitat Program
of this vital expertise would be a devastating blow, from which it
could not recover, since its scientific credibility in marine and
coastal ecology would have been largely lost.
Recommendation
Rather than transferring NMFS' primary scientific expertise to
other organizations, the Administration should strengthen NMFS' Habitat
Program by proposing a significant budget increase--$20 million was
recommended in 1992 by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and in
1991 by the National Fish Habitat Symposium--to allow it to adequately
fulfill its important legislative mandates under the FWCA, as described
above. The Habitat Program represents only about 6 percent of NMFS'
total budget while it deals with those human-caused factors that are
responsible for roughly half of the losses, which have been experienced
by U.S. marine fishery populations. A fully functional Habitat Program
would provide protection sufficient to eventually double inshore-
dependent populations of living marine resources, which is estimated to
produce an additional $1 billion in dockside landings, $12 billion in
economic activity and 250,000 additional jobs in the commercial sector
and generating $4.2 billion in earnings, $15 billion in economic
activity and 286,000 additional jobs in the recreational sector per
year. Other related NOAA programs (e.g., Sea Grant, Coastal Zone
Management, Ocean Assessment, Status and Trends, Marine Sanctuaries and
Reserves, Environmental Research Laboratories, and Damage Assessment)
should be managed by NOAA's senior leadership, as described in the NOAA
Habitat Strategic Plan, to support and/or complement the single NOAA
program (NMFS) having the legislative authority to both (1) act as the
federal steward of living marine resources and their habitats, and (2)
be involved in all federal decision-making on proposed projects that
together determine the nation's coastal ecosystem health. Finally,
NMFS' entire Habitat Program, including its research programs, should
be managed as a unit under the direct line authority of a single
national program manager in NMFS headquarters.
Our organizations stand ready to assist the Administration and the
Congress in determining how best to conserve and protect the nation's
living marine resources and their essential habitats. Should you desire
additional information, please contact James R. Chambers of the
National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program at (301) 949-3003. We
appreciate your consideration of our comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Oceans Campaign, Cape Arago Audubon
Society, Center for Marine Conservation, Coastal Research and
Education, Inc., Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife,
Environment Hawaii, Fish Forever, Greenpeace, Gulf Restoration Network,
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, Natural Resource Consultants,
Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina Chapter Sierra Club,
Safer Waters in Massachusetts, Trustees for Alaska
We request that this statement be included in the Senate
Appropriations Committee's hearing record for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. We urge, at a minimum, that
the Committee fully fund Administration's request for the base
activities and programs of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act in fiscal year 1999. These programs and activities
include the Resource Information, Fishery Management Programs, Regional
Fishery Management Councils and the Enforcement and Surveillance
portions of NMFS's budget request.
We greatly appreciate the funding levels this Subcommittee provided
for fisheries management last year, but needed increases in Resource
Information and Fishery Management Programs were eroded by the
inclusion of Congressional earmarks. In general, many if not most of
these additional activities have merit. We urge you, however, to
provide additional funding for these earmarks beyond the level needed
for the NMFS's core programs to restore and manage the nation's fishery
resources.
The marine fishery resources of the United States are in serious
trouble. According to NMFS, of the fish stocks under its jurisdiction,
whose status is known, 36 percent are overutilized. There are
significant costs to this depletion--both ecological and economic.
Until our fisheries are better managed, our marine ecosystems will not
recover, and fisheries will continue to produce far below their
potential. NMFS estimates that restoring fisheries will have a
potential $25 billion total positive impact on the national economy.
These public resources must be managed on a sustainable basis and
assessments must be completed (for exploited stocks in particular) and
kept up to date. In 1996, you and your colleagues in Congress took the
first step in rebuilding and conserving these public resources by
enacting the Sustainable Fisheries Act which strengthened the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the regional fishery management councils and NMFS are
required to adopt or amend fishery management plans that: (1) identify
overfished stocks and stocks approaching an overfished condition, and
prevent or eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; (2)
avoid bycatch and minimize the mortality of unavoidable bycatch; and
(3) identify, designate and protect essential fish habitat, including
minimizing adverse effects on essential fish habitat caused by fishing
and consulting with federal agencies proposing activities that may
adversely affect such habitat.
Resource Information
NMFS has requested an increase of $8.95 million and 10 additional
FTE's over the current year including: $3.07 million to conduct needed
stock assessments as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and $5.88
million to restore base program funding needed to cover earmarks in the
current fiscal year.
Congress provided a significant $8 million increase for the program
this year, but accompanied that increase with $12.4 million worth of
earmarks. As a result, the agency has curtailed ongoing stock
assessment and data collection work.
We recommend funding the Administration's request of $92.7 million
for base program activities in Resource Information.
Fishery Management Programs
NMFS has requested an increase of $8.65 million and 5 additional
FTE's over the current year's funding level including: $2.85 million
for implementation of essential fish habitat provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act; $1.45 million for new fishery management plan
amendments to implement new overfishing, rebuilding and bycatch
provisions of the Act; $2.85 million to implement new fishery
management plans; and $1.5 million for restoration of funds to the base
program used to cover this year's earmarks.
Last year, this Subcommittee demonstrated a recognition of the
importance of restoring and managing the public's fishery resources.
You went beyond the President's request for fisheries management
programs by providing $30 million. Unfortunately, your increase was not
sustained in the Conference Committee with $27.25 million being
provided.
While an increase was still provided, NMFS received only half the
additional funding needed to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As a
result, the agency is limited in its ability to implement the Act's new
provisions relating to overfishing, bycatch and essential fish habitat.
The reduction from the Administration's request also limits resources
available for implementing fishery management plans developed by the
councils.
We recommend that the Subcommittee, at a minimum, provide for the
Administration's request of $34.4 million in NMFS's base funding for
fisheries management programs.
Regional Fishery Management Councils
NMFS has requested $12.8 million, an increase of $900,000 for next
year.
For the current fiscal year, the Senate recognized the increased
demands placed upon the councils to implement the critical conservation
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and went beyond the President in
recommending $13 million. While the Conference Committee provided $11.9
million, this figure was still above the President's request and a
needed boost in council resources.
We recommend that the Senate again provide for $13 million, and at
a minimum, no less than the $12.8 million requested by the
Administration.
Enforcement and Surveillance
NMFS has requested $18.5 million for an increase of $900,000 and an
additional 5 FTE's.
The enactment of the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
will require greater enforcement effort from NMFS. The agency is
intending to use the increased resources to expand efforts at voluntary
compliance and vessel monitoring. These initiatives are being curtailed
this as a result of not receiving an adequate increase for this year.
We recommend providing for the Administration's request of $18.5
million and 5 additional FTE's.
We thank the Appropriations Committee for consideration of our
recommendations. We feel it vitally important to the future of our
nation's fishery resources, and the communities that depend upon them,
that Congress at least provide for the Administration requests for base
program funding to implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
______
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Prepared Statement of the Investment Company Institute
The Investment Company Institute \1\ appreciates this opportunity
to submit testimony to the Subcommittee in support of the fiscal year
1999 Appropriations request for the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). The Institute would like to commend the Subcommittee for its
prior efforts to assure adequate resources for the SEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Investment Company Institute (Institute) is the national
association of the American investment company industry. Its membership
includes 6,896 open-end investment companies (``mutual funds''), 436
closed-end investment companies and 10 sponsors of unit investment
trusts. Its mutual fund members have assets of about $4.505 trillion,
accounting for approximately 95 percent of total industry assets, and
have over 62 million individual shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual funds are very important to middle class Americans seeking
to save and invest. Today, more than 65 million investors, at least one
in every three households, own mutual fund shares. Mutual fund
shareholders have a median household income of $50,000. These millions
of average Americans receive and deserve vigilant regulatory oversight
over mutual funds. Given the increasing importance of mutual funds to
millions of investors, sufficient funding of the SEC should be a
priority. The Institute urges Congress to provide appropriations at a
level sufficient to ensure that the SEC may fulfill its regulatory
mandate.
The Administration's fiscal year 1999 Budget proposes SEC funding
at a level of $341.1 million. The Institute supports this level of
funding to support the SEC's operations, especially those of the
Division of Investment Management, which regulates the mutual fund
industry.
Adequate financial resources for the SEC are essential to continue
effective regulatory oversight and afford important investor protection
and awareness initiatives. Several important SEC initiatives portend an
increase in the workload of the Division of Investment Management.
First, the SEC has adopted rules to require the use of plain English in
mutual fund prospectuses. Second, the agency has adopted substantial
revisions to the required disclosure in mutual fund prospectuses,
including the requirement that it be simplified to provide essential
information about a particular fund in a concise, less technical
manner. In addition, the SEC has adopted a rule that would permit
mutual funds to use fund ``profiles,'' which summarize key information
about the fund in a concise, standardized form. The implementation of
these important initiatives, which will benefit millions of American
investors, will require additional staff to work with mutual funds as
they revise their prospectuses and to review fund profiles. Adequate
funding is also needed for routine inspections of investment advisers
and fund companies, as well as special projects involving investor
protection, such as monitoring the Year 2000 conversion project. It is
for these and other reasons that Chairman Levitt is seeking additional
staff in the Division of Investment Management.
Finally, adequate funding is essential to the SEC's efforts to
educate this nation's investors. The SEC recently has instituted
several unprecedented outreach programs, such as nationwide Investor
Town Meetings and the upcoming ``Facts on Saving and Investing
Campaign'' at the end of March. These programs assist investors and
small businesses to understand capital markets and establish realistic
expectations about market performance. This is an integral part of the
agency's mission to protect investors.
In order to accomplish these worthy objectives and to continue to
function as an effective regulatory agency, we support that the SEC be
funded at the level requested by Chairman Levitt.
We appreciate your consideration of our views.
______
RELATED AGENCIES
Prepared Statement of William P. Fuller, President, The Asia Foundation
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of The Asia Foundation's fiscal year 1999 budget request. The
Foundation has been grateful for the support that the Congress and this
Committee have provided over the years.
Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with you and the Committee the work
The Asia Foundation is doing today, and our hopes and plans for future
projects. We believe that we have many examples of how a small,
independent organization can advance American interests in the Asia-
Pacific region, particularly in light of the challenges facing Asia
today.
We are pleased that for fiscal year 1999 the Administration has
endorsed the work of the Foundation by requesting an appropriations
level of $15 million for the Foundation, $10 million for programs in
the Asia-Pacific region, and $5 million specifically to advance the
rule of law in China. During the course of the past two fiscal years,
severe budget cuts have forced the Foundation to reduce significantly
its programs in support of democratic development and economic
liberalization. The funding level requested by the Administration will
allow the Foundation to resume some of these program activities and
expand its level of grantmaking in the region in support of broader
American interests and more specifically, programs in China under the
President's rule of law initiative.
Let me put the work of the Foundation into context. While the Asia-
Pacific region has, for the past several decades, experienced
extraordinary growth and development, we have seen over the past year
how fragile economic systems can be that are not supported by adequate
legal and political systems. As I said in testimony last fall before
the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific at a hearing on
democracy promotion programs, experience in Asia has demonstrated that
it is not enough to have a democratic ideal or democratic leaders. It
is also important to help develop an environment of broad public
support, an active and engaged civil society, predictable legal
systems, responsible government and a strong private sector. Until
recently, most of the emerging democracies in Asia have not been
seriously tested economically. The recent declines in economic growth
and the currency crisis in Asia is providing this test for several
countries simultaneously. Serious economic downturn has led to
dissatisfaction and unrest, and, if history is any guide, could lead to
a slowdown in political reform or possibly in more extreme cases to a
revived role for the military in government. Recent economic and
political developments reinforce even more clearly the need for the
United States to remain engaged and to continue to support the new
democracies of Asia.
We believe that The Asia Foundation, building on its 44 years of
experience on the ground throughout the region in the service of U.S.
interests, has the capability to advance these interests.
The United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region which is
increasingly democratic, with governments that are governed by the rule
of law and are accountable to their people not only through free and
fair elections, but through administrative processes that are open and
transparent.
The United States also seeks an Asia Pacific region that harnesses
its enormous indigenous economic potential to improve the well-being of
its own people, certainly in part by pursuing open trade and investment
policies which allow U.S. businesses to trade and invest in the region
to the mutual benefit of Americans and Asians.
Finally, the United States seeks an Asia-Pacific region that is
stable and free from military conflict and territorial aggression,
where nations work together harmoniously within the region and in
friendship with the United States.
Mr. Chairman, these are precisely the three programming priorities
of The Asia Foundation: (1) democracy and the rule of law; (2) open
trade and investment, and (3) peaceful U.S.-Asian and intra-regional
relations.
The Asia Foundation has been operating in many countries for many
years supporting the rule of law, democratic institutions, and
nongovernmental organizations, including human rights, consumer and
women's groups. Our purpose is to help local institutions and
leadership and help develop appropriate and effective policies.
I want to emphasize that the Foundation remains a field
organization that supports indigenous groups and projects. Our job is
to strengthen capacity. We are not Washington based. We are organized
around small but effective offices in thirteen Asian nations, including
a presence in both China and Taiwan. Through those offices, we can
identify and form relationships with individuals and groups who merit
our help as they seek to advance the same goals and interests that we
support.
We are not a research organization. We remain a grant-making
organization, conscious at all times of the necessity of being
efficient, committed to keeping our administrative overhead low and
delivering financial and technical support to Asian projects. The
Committee in the past has praised and encouraged that grant making role
and we remain faithful to it. We make sequential grants to steadily
build institutions, develop leaders and move policies forward.
Foundation support is used for training, consultancies, technical
assistance and seed funding for new organizations, all aimed at
promoting reform and building in-country capacity. We can say with
confidence that there is no other U.S. non-profit engaged on the ground
for over forty years, that has the breadth of contacts and
relationships or the trust and credibility that we have in Asia and the
Pacific. This sustained involvement is the hallmark of the Foundation
and its field presence in Asia.
We are seeking an appropriation of $15 million because we have
identified worthwhile and urgent programs in Asia that require that
level of funding, particularly given the economic and political crisis
facing many countries in the region of key interest to the United
States. Furthermore, given the high level of attention and cooperation
resulting from the recent U.S. China Summit Declaration on the Rule of
Law in China, and the upcoming Presidential Summit scheduled for June
1998, opportunities exist as never before for programs that will likely
have real impact in reforming the legal system in China.
Public funding is essential to us for many reasons. While the
Foundation remains committed to expanding private fundraising, the
credibility, flexibility and reliability that public funding lends to
the Foundation's effort is critical. As an organization committed to
American foreign policy interests in Asia, we can only be successful if
potential private donors understand that the U.S. government continues
to support our efforts in the region.
Private funding does not replace public funding, either in scale or
flexibility. Private funding is almost always tied to specific projects
(as are USAID contract funds for which the Foundation competes) and the
Foundation does not solicit or accept private funds that might
compromise our fundamental commitment to support overall U.S. interests
in Asia. Further, U.S. government appropriated funding maintains the
Foundation's flexibility to respond quickly to fast-breaking program
developments and enables the Foundation to work in key countries that
are of high priority to the U.S. but where USAID and other assistance
do not exist. This has proven true in Pakistan, where the Foundation
coordinates and operates the Pakistan NGO initiative in the absence of
USAID. Also in Thailand over the past year, where the Foundation has
been engaged for decades and it became clear that other U.S. assistance
would not be available. In this respect, Foundation programs are also
able to undertake initiatives that government programs cannot, such as
address sensitive issues related to economic and political reform. The
Asia Foundation continues to be a model of public-private partnership
and is a resource which complements official foreign policy efforts.
In this discussion of what we are doing, I hope I can demonstrate
the value to the United States of what we do and provide examples of
what we would be able to do in programmatic terms with a $15 million
appropriations level.
democracy and the rule of law
The Foundation strengthens parliamentary processes, supports
democratic elections, fosters accountability within governments,
promotes the rule of law and encourages a vibrant civil society. Our
support goes beyond the formal structures of institutions by focusing
on the performance of those institutions and their ability to enhance
the lives of the public they serve.
Foundation programs have provided substantial assistance to
parliaments in 16 countries in Asia, from technical assistance on
specific legislation to training for members and staff, including
facilitating interaction with the nongovernmental sector.
In the last year, the Foundation supported election programs in
Bangladesh, China, Mongolia and Nepal. In Bangladeshj, the Foundation
coordinated international donor support, including Japanese support,
for the Fair Election Monitoring Alliance (FEMA) which fielded 26,000
volunteers to observe the country's most peaceful and participatory
election in history. In Mongolia, the Foundation helped establish the
country's first Voeter Education Center (VEC), which conducted
extensive voter education programs and sponsored the first televised
presidential debate. The Foundation continued to support local
governance reform in China, which reaches over 100,000 villages
nationwide, including training, production of videotapes on elections
broadcast on national television, research on the role and structure of
Villager Committees and county-level People's Congresses, and surveys
of villagers' views of local governance.
In promoting the rule of law and legal systems that support a
stable and just society, the Foundation has assisted in the reform of
legal and judicial systems through the training of judges and lawyers
in 13 countries aimed at improving the performance of the formal legal
system and court administration programs to reduce case backlog. The
Foundation also assisted in providing technical assistance for
substantive law reform. The Foundation helped China's Bureau of
Legislative Affairs to draft a new administrative law that protects the
rights of citizens, enables them to sue government agencies in order to
curb government agency abuses. In Sri Lanka, the Foundation supports
over 200 mediation boards which handle an annual case load of around
350,000 as well as legal education programs reaching over 600,000
people.
The Foundation is the single largest supporter of the
nongovernmental sector in all of the Asian countries in which we
operate, supporting over 800 indigenous organizations since 1990. These
organizations are essential for a vibrant civil society, encouraging
public participation and transparency in the policy making process.
In Cambodia, despite extraordinary difficulties and an uncertain
future, there is an active Cambodian nongovernmental community which we
have helped build up over the last five years. The Asia Foundation is
the single most active American supporter of key human rights
organizations after the events of July 1997, including support for the
Cambodian Institute for Human Rights and the Cambodian League for the
Promotion and Defense of Human Rights. Grants have supported human
rights training, education, and investigation of human rights
violations. In politically sensitive circumstances, building democratic
systems takes time, sustained commitment, resources and experience.
Programs like the one in Cambodia are carefully calibrated and based on
regular analysis by local staff on the ground.
Of great concern to the Foundation is the rapidly deteriorating
situation in Indonesia. The growing nationalist sentiment in response
to the conditions of the IMF, the continued effort to delink economic
reform from political reformation and good governance, and the sharp
decline in the economic status of the general population leading to a
rising number of demonstrations and arrests, attacks on the Chinese
minority and the growing increase in Islamic extremism are all critical
problems for the country and of great concern to U.S. policymakers.
With a $15 million appropriation, the Foundation would deepen its
involvement in Indonesia, a country where it has maintained a program
since 1955. Because of its long history and experience, the Foundation
has been able to advance U.S. interests in important, yet sensitive
public policy areas related to civil society development, including
support for community development and conflict resolution activities of
the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) the largest nongovernmental, Islamic
organization in Indonesia with over 30,000 members. The Foundation
would expand its continuing program with Indonesia's moderate Islamic
community to encourage support for peaceful community development;
broaden its support for selected institutions in East Timor, including
the university and local press; and increase its programs to support
alternative forms of conflict resolution; and strengthen laws related
to business and economics.
The challenge to groups working in the field of human rights in
Indonesia has increased in the wake of the worst economic crisis the
country has faced in over three decades. Heightened social tensions
resulting from the impact of the crisissuch as increased unemployment,
rising prices and greater social inequity have raised concern among
nongovernmental organizations and institutions such as the Foundation-
supported National Human Rights Commission about the potential negative
impact in terms of human rights.
The Foundation plans to expand its support for the National Human
Rights Commission, an organization that has demonstrated effectiveness
in mediating disputes and handling politically sensitive issues in a
fair, balanced and responsible manner. Its program will continue to
focus on establishment of a network of educational institutions, NGO's
and other target groups, including the police and military, in order to
develop a human rights education system for the country. The Foundation
is working with the Commission on database development for its
monitoring and investigation work and to facilitate information
dissemination.
open trade and investment
The Asia Foundation supports programs that lead to open trade,
investment and economic policy reform at the regional and national
levels, and projects that work to spread the benefits of economic
growth throughout Asian societies.
The Foundation supports regional organizations such as APEC and the
private sector Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) that are
committed to open trade and investment. In the past year, the
Foundation participated in the PECC Trade Policy Forum and funded and
contributed to the analysis and monitoring of APEC individual country
action plans to keep the region on target to reach free trade by the
year 2020. In the Philippines, the Foundation supported efforts to
reduce tariffs and help open trade in the information technology (IT)
and civil aviation sectors, and supported a cluster of activities to
eliminate key policy barriers and increase market access and
opportunities in information technology. Addressing concerns on the
implementation of government policy in IT, the Foundation supported the
Asian Institute of Management's Forum to draft a policy that
established a National Information Technology Board with private sector
leadership and worked with private sector organizations to develop
consensus for the U.S.-backed Information Technology Agreement, to
eliminate tariffs on IT products and services by 2000.
In Shanghai, China, the Foundation supported efforts to study the
policy environment for liberalization of the insurance industry as a
test case for wider opening of China's insurance market to foreign
competition.
As a part of its market liberalization program, Vietnam seeks to
become a member of the World Trade Organization and to enter a trade
agreement with the United States. The Foundation has assisted
Vietnamese officials and the business community to understand better
the basic free trade principles central to WTO membership and bilateral
trade agreements, and identify key regulatory changes necessary prior
to the successful negotiation of any agreements.
The Foundation is helping to introduce a greater degree of
predictability among major Asian economies by improving intellectual
property rights protection, strengthening anti-corruption laws and
establishing private commercial dispute resolution organizations. In
Thailand, the Foundation focused on developing constituencies to
promote sustained counter-corruption efforts by the government and
civic sector through support for research on the political economy of
corruption. This received widespread attention in the press and mass
media.
The Foundation supports small enterprise development in Indonesia,
Bangladesh, and the Philippines. In Indonesia, the Foundation has
contributed to policies to address the impediments to small business
development through its programs in support of small and medium
enterprises (SME's).
As a result of the current economic crisis in Indonesia, the
Foundation and its partner NGO's country-wide have actively approached
the Indonesian government and the World Bank to recommend specific
policies to assist small business, where the majority of the population
are employed, at this critical time. Recommendations include creation
of loan guarantee mechanisms to increase commercial lending for small
and medium enterprises; specific deregulation; reduced corruption;
dissolving certain monopolies and unfair practices affecting SME's; and
speeding up the decentralization process. The Foundation's NGO partners
are also developing plans to monitor implementation of deregulation
efforts in accordance with the IMF package signed in January 1998.
SME's are receiving increased attention during this time of economic
crisis and the Foundation is seen as a leading resource in this field.
international relations
The Asia Foundation organizes U.S.-Asian dialogues on issues such
as democratization, human rights, civil society, regional economic
policy, and the environment, and supports diplomatic efforts to address
security issues. The Foundation also continued to pursue human rights
programs on a regional basis, through an unofficial human rights
working group that represents 16 countries in the region, including
China and Vietnam. The Foundation will continue its support for the
Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) as a
crucial vehicle for Track II dialogue on the evolving regional security
structure in the region.
china and the rule of law
Unique among U.S. non-profit organizations, The Asia Foundation
maintains an active and mutually accepted programming presence in
China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. With a legacy of trust, confidence and
good-will developed over the years, the Foundation is able to work
effectively with a wide range of actors, including government agencies,
academic groups, emerging nongovernmental organizations and the private
sector.
The Foundation's goals in China are threefold: to support increased
citizens' participation in governance and in a growing NGO sector;
promote the rule of law and its application in a rapidly changing
economic and political environment; and encourage a more informed,
diverse foreign policy community. At a time when engagement in China is
critical to U.S. interests, the Foundation is at the forefront in
supporting important efforts that encourage greater pluralism and
citizen participation.
The U.S.-China Joint Declaration resulting from the Presidential
Summit last November included a rule of law initiative to increase
legal cooperation between the U.S. and China. China has made it clear
that an internationally accepted legal system is important to its
overall development and modernization strategy. Since 1994, the Chinese
government has taken further steps in legal development, partly because
of international economic requirements and partly as a result of
decentralization which has been a key part of China's modernization
effort. Between 1979 and the present, more than 300 laws have been
enacted and nearly 4,000 State Council regulations issued, which define
more clearly the functions of government, decentralize certain
functions to provinces and communities and in some cases, provide
standards for holding government accountable. Enacted within the past
three years, this indicates an accelerated pace of legal reform.
Since 1979, The Asia Foundation has given priority to the
development of the rule of law in China. During the early years of
China's opening to the West, the Foundation sponsored exchanges for
Chinese law faculty and legal officials, particularly in economic
fields, to take advantage of openings and support reformers where few
existed. Over time, as opportunities and space for reform increased,
the Foundation focused more on supporting broad legal education and
institutional capacity building. This included training opportunities,
technical support for law faculty and officials, law curriculum
development, the distribution of legal materials, exchange programs for
judges, and substantive law, including human rights, and legal
drafting, especially in the administrative law area which governs the
rights of citizens to seek redress for official government actions when
rights have been violated.
Given the high level of attention paid to legal reform by the
leadership and the commitment through the Joint Declaration, the time
is right for expanded programming in promotion of law and legal reform
in China. Planned reforms in legal education, judicial training and
expansion of administrative and commercial laws are all areas in which
The Asia Foundation has been actively engaged, and has a record and
history of programs and relationships. In fact, the Foundation has been
asked by a range of Chinese institutions and asked by the U.S.
government, specifically the Department of State, to take the lead on
programs under the rule of law initiative. But with resource
constraints, the Foundation has not been able to respond adequately.
With additional resources, the Foundation would be able to increase its
law and legal reform projects in China at this opportune time.
It is The Asia Foundation's intention to expand its programs
related to law and legal reform in China in a way that is consistent
with the continuing concerns about human rights and the state's
relations with citizens, and the desire to expand economic relations
with China on the basis of free and fair trade. It is clear that
progress will be gradual and there will be challenges, but it is
important to bear in mind that the large majority of the reforms are
less than three years old, underscoring an increased pace of reform
today. We should take advantage of the openings that exist and an
expanded Foundation program now would maximize the opportunity to do
so. Such expansion will build upon nearly 20 years of Foundation work
in promoting rule of law in China, and has the potential to advance the
Presidential initiative agreed upon at the U.S. China Summit.
conclusion
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to outline some of the
program activities which the Foundation hopes to undertake throughout
the region with special emphasis on the expanded programming in the
rule of law in China. We hope and believe that these programs are at
the core of U.S. interests in the region and that they merit an
appropriation at the level of $15 million for fiscal year 1999,
consistent with the President's request.
As you and your colleagues know, the budget constraints of recent
years have compelled significant reductions in the Foundation's annual
appropriation. As a result, we at the Foundation have worked hard to
reduce our budget, cut staff and expenditures, and increase our
efficiency as well as diversify our funding sources. During this
difficult period, we have worked to maintain our regional presence
through our 13 offices in Asia, and to put the maximum possible amount
of appropriated dollars toward on the ground program activity. I pledge
to you that if the Congress appropriates the full $15 million request,
The Asia Foundation will use those funds efficiently and effectively
for program activity in the region as I have just described. Thank you
for your attention and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Association of Retired Persons
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) appreciates this
opportunity to comment on appropriations next year for the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC) and on the issue of telemarketing fraud--a
crime which is targeted primarily at older citizens. Our
recommendations concerning telemarketing fraud comprise the second part
of this statement.
AARP supports the Administration's recommended increase next year
(from $283 million to $340 million) for the Legal Services Corporation
(LSC). Part of the increase would provide a cost-of-living adjustment
for the local legal aid programs which provide assistance to low-income
persons throughout the nation. Additional resources would also be
targeted to special initiatives which address domestic violence and the
unmet legal needs of children. The need for legal services continues to
be overwhelming. The Corporation reports that almost one in every five
Americans is potentially eligible for such aid. In 1996, the number of
cases closed by LSC was approximately 1.5 million. More than 1.6
million cases would be resolved next year under the Administration's
proposal.
LSC is a lifeline for vulnerable Americans of all ages, especially
the largest beneficiary group: children living in poverty. These
services often represent the only means available to protect their
rights and defend their best interests. This is also the case with
older Americans, including poor minority and disabled persons, who
confront substantial legal issues beyond those of the general
population due to their unique health, income and social problems.
These include nursing home abuse, abuse by family members, obstacles in
obtaining public benefits such as Social Security and Medicare,
problems involving consumer fraud, denial of pension benefits and age
discrimination.
Legal services programs help solve a variety of problems for older
Americans. In the past they have: helped a destitute client overcome an
erroneous denial of Medicaid coverage; secured information under
pension plans about clients' rights to pension benefits; prevented
nursing homes from arbitrarily discharging immobile and indigent
patients; and corrected clients' Social Security earnings records to
establish their eligibility for benefits.
While nationally there are 20 lawyers for every 10,000 people, the
Legal Services Corporation Act embodies a goal of ``minimum access'',
which is defined as two staff attorneys for every 10,000 people who are
at or below the official poverty level. The Corporation has been able
to implement this goal only once due to budgetary constraints. AARP
believes it is critical that the Federal government continue to ensure
that poor Americans have access to civil justice so that their
fundamental rights may be protected.
Telemarketing fraud is a major concern to the Association because
of its impact on older persons, who are victimized in disproportionate
numbers. In earlier testimony before the Subcommittee at its hearing on
Telemarketing Scams, we reported that older consumers were the single
largest group of individuals specifically targeted by fraudulent
telemarketers. More than half of all victims are over 50 years old--an
age group which represents only 36 percent of the total population.
Once victimized, a person is at the greatest risk of being caught in
the ``trap'' again. These criminals will target their ``marks''
repeatedly until all assets are gone. An estimated $40 billion is lost
each year as a result of such scams.
There is a continuing need for a consistent, large-scale education
campaign to warn potential victims. The Association will continue to
press even harder next year with its own efforts in this regard. These
include working with law enforcement agencies and hundreds of
volunteers, including victims of telemarketing fraud, to get the
message out to a broad cross-section of the public. AARP applauds the
attention telemarketing fraud is receiving both in and out of
government. The hearing held by this Subcommittee has helped to
intensify public awareness of the crime and the scam artists who prey
on vulnerable Americans. The hearing also underscored the advantages of
establishing a 1-800 telephone hotline by the Federal Trade Commission.
AARP strongly urges the Subcommittee to provide the necessary resources
for such an effort in the Commission's fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Hotlines are the best source of information on emerging new scams and
telemarketing pitches and provide an enormous service to individual
consumers, law enforcement, and to the fraud-fighting agencies that
help them.
______
Prepared Statement of Doreen Dodson, Chair, Standing Committee on Legal
Aid and Indigent Defendants, American Bar Association
I am Doreen Dodson, a practicing lawyer in St. Louis, MO, and the
Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent
Defendants of the American Bar Association. I appear here today at the
request of our President, Jerome J. Shestack, to voice the
Association's views with respect to the Legal Services Corporation and
its fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
The ABA recommends that the Legal Services Corporation's funding be
restored to its fiscal year 1996 funding level of $415 million. In any
event, the appropriation should not be less than the $340 million
figure requested by both the Corporation itself and the Administration.
We commend the leadership of the Corporation for the responsible
and diligent manner in which it has been carrying out its duties,
commendation which is particularly appropriate in light of the sweeping
changes in this program mandated by the 104th and 105th Congresses. We
believe the Corporation's new leadership deserves your confidence and
support and urge that increased funding be provided to allow the
program to carry out its important mission.
This program is an important component of our democratic system of
government. Justice and fairness are bedrock principles of our
democracy. President Washington wrote that ``The due administration of
justice is the firmest pillar of good government.'' But the justice
system cannot retain the respect and popular support so essential to
its functioning if it is apparent that access to justice is dependent
upon one's wealth or place of residence. A comprehensive, national
system providing civil legal services to the nation's poor must be
maintained and strengthened.
Federal dollars, channeled through the Legal Services Corporation,
account for about 60 percent of the funding utilized by the LSC-funded
local programs to address the legal needs of the poor. The remaining 40
percent comes from a wide variety of sources--lawyer contributions,
foundation grants, court filing fees, and, most significantly, IOLTA
(``interest on lawyer trust account'') programs. In addition, the
private bar has made an enormous ``in kind'' contribution in the form
of donated, or ``pro bono'', legal services. Some 150,000 lawyers
participate in formal pro bono programs affiliated with local legal
services offices, and many thousands of others contribute their time
through other means.
But collectively, these resources are able to provide legal
services to only about 20 percent of those who need them each year, as
shown by numerous state and national statistically-sound surveys. Local
legal services offices are functioning much like hospital emergency
rooms, engaging in legal triage as they attempt to cope with the
enormous unmet legal needs.
The situation will become even worse if a challenge to the
constitutionality of IOLTA programs is upheld by the United States
Supreme Court. The case of Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Legal
Access to Justice Foundation was argued before the Court January 13 of
this year, and a decision is anticipated by June. An adverse ruling by
the Court would result in over $50 million of funding for local LSC
recipient programs disappearing overnight--or more than 10 percent of
the total legal services funding nationally.
But even if the ruling is favorable, the nation will still be faced
with the reality that 80 percent of the legal needs of the poor will
remain unmet. It is in the interest of all of us to see that these
legal needs are resolved in a peaceful manner and that respect for the
rule of law is strengthened. ``Liberty and justice for all'' is our
proud national credo, but it is empty rhetoric without the resources
administered by the Legal Services Corporation.
In fiscal year 1981, the Corporation was funded at a level of $321
million. In real dollars, and adjusted only for inflation and not the
interim growth in the poverty population, an appropriation in fiscal
year 1999 of more than $600 million would be required just to ``stay
even.''
As noted above, Congress appropriated $415 million for LSC in
fiscal year 1996. Congress has now made changes in the program which
have addressed concerns about particular activities of legal services
grantees. The Corporation has demonstrated its commitment to and
ability to carry out the new Congressional charter for this program. We
believe, under these circumstances, it would be appropriate and
desirable to restore funding to the $415 million level. At the very
minimum, we urge you to provide the $340 million in funding requested
by both the Corporation and the Administration.
______
Prepared Statement of Georgetown University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are Father William L.
George, S.J. and Father T. Byron Collins, S.J., Assistants to the
President of Georgetown University, the Rev. Leo J. O'Donovan, S.J. We
appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the Subcommittee
on the development of a Non-invasive Technology for the Testing of
Medications for Children and the Non-Invasive Coronary Angiography
Program.
Non-Invasive Technology for the Testing of Medications for Children
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, The
Judiciary and Related Agencies have expressed interest in the
development of new technologies to improve the safe use of medications
for children of the United States. We are requesting the appropriation
of $8 million in fiscal year 1999 for a consortium of Georgetown
University and Columbia University Medical Schools to develop non-
invasive medication testing methods for children.
Over 70 percent of all drugs that are prescribed by pediatricians
for children have never been formally tested and approved by the Food
and Drug Administration for use in children. For serious illnesses such
as cancer, it approaches 95 percent of drugs. The Food and Drug
Administration has encouraged companies to perform studies in children
after new drugs are marketed but few companies have done so, usually
citing the difficulties, dangers and potential litigation that might
result from evaluation of the effects of their drugs on children. In
1997 the FDA attempted to enforce a resolution that would have required
that all new drugs having potential value for children be tested in
children. This met with strong opposition from the pharmaceutical
industry and was abandoned. Subsequently, the FDA announced that it
would compromise and lower the requirement for approval of drugs for
use in children. Instead of the usual requirement of two controlled
clinical trials demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of a drug,
the Agency would accept data that identified the dosage for children
required to match the plasma concentrations previously associated with
a positive response in adults. In the last few months of 1997, the FDA
Modernization Act was passed and included a major incentive for the
testing of drugs in children. New drugs that are evaluated in children
can now be given a six month patent extension.
While all of these efforts are laudable and seek to correct a
serious problem (i.e. our ignorance in how to treat our children when
ill), they are not based on a sound understanding of pediatric clinical
pharmacology and human development pharmacology. These efforts assume
that children are simply small adults and that we can use the same
methods to evaluate and test drugs in them that we use in adults.
Unfortunately, the limited data that we have available indicate that
this is unlikely to be true. For example, a normal dosage and plasma
concentration of digoxin, a drug used to strengthen the heartbeat in a
child, even when reduced for the smaller size of a child, has no
relationship to that required for the adult. Research in animals
indicates that this is likely to be true for many other drugs. These
proposals also assume that we can simply stick children with needles
and draw blood samples every hour or so for up to 12-16 times a day to
measure the amount of the drug in a child's plasma. Even if the data
were to be valid, the amount of blood required, the pain, and the risk
of infection make this approach unethical.
What is needed is research to apply modern techniques such as
nanofabrication, chip technology and nanofluidics to develop new, less
invasive (or non-invasive) techniques to measure the amount of drug in
the child's plasma and more importantly to assess the beneficial
effects of drugs. For example, Dr. Carl Peck, Director of the
Georgetown Center for Drug Development Sciences, has demonstrated that
the concentration of the asthma drug theophylline in plasma can be
estimated by simply measuring the amount absorbed through the skin
using a simple charcoal filled gel skin patch on the back. Dr. John
Currie, a physicist and Director of the Georgetown Advanced Engineering
Laboratory, has the expertise and a newly built nanofabrication lab
capable of engineering other modern effective and humane techniques for
assessing the actions of drugs in children. Without new and appropriate
methods specifically designed for children, we will be gathering data
that is likely to be worthless and therefore misleading or even worse,
endangering children participating in these trials. We are requesting
appropriation of funds to conduct a demonstration program for the
humane and scientifically sound development of medication for children.
Non-Invasive Coronary Angiography Program
Robert Ledley, DDS of the Georgetown University Medical Center,
will design and construct a safe screening procedure using a
specialized x-ray unit capable of viewing detailed images of the
coronary arteries.
At present, coronary angiography is performed only when there is an
indication of a problem, such as angina or pain during exercise, an
abnormal electrocardiograph, or negative results from a tread mill
test, etc. The question naturally arises: Why not do coronary
angiography as a screening test on presumed normal individuals? The
answer is that arterial coronary angiography, where the catheter is
placed into the aorta, and pushed to the heart, has a mortality risk.
This risk is due to the fact that the catheter can break off debris or
pieces of atherosclerotic plaque from the lining of the arterial wall,
which then is carried by the arterial blood directly to the brain or
other body organs potentially resulting in serious damage. This risk is
very small, but nevertheless real, and therefore, arterial coronary
angiography is done only when there is a distinct medical need for
doing it.
Cardiologists have been waiting for a safe method for imaging the
coronary arteries that could be used for screening normal, apparently
healthy individuals. Robert Ledley, DDS of the Georgetown University
Medical Center will rapidly develop such a safe method. The brain and
other body organs will not be at risk and the procedure will enable a
clear image of the coronary arteries to be seen, just as clear as that
of arterial angiography.
The requested funding for this program is $1 million for fiscal
year 1999.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Albright, Madeleine K., Secretary of State, Department of State.. 85
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
prepared statement............................................. 527
Alvarez, Hon. Aida, Administrator, Small Business Administration. 367
Prepared statement........................................... 368
American Association of Retired Persons, prepared statement...... 577
American Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement.. 507
American Oceans Campaign, prepared statements
60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeM/Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeAmerican Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement..........
532Andreasen, Christian, prepared statement.........................
558Arbetman, Lee, coordinator, National Law-Related Education Program,
prepared statement.................................... 520Association of
America's Public Television Stations, prepared
statement...................................................... 536Baker,
D. James, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce....................................................... 333
Prepared statement........................................... 336Ballard,
Dr. Robert, president, Institute for Exploration, Sea Research Foundation,
prepared statement........................ 556Becker, Capt. Fred R., Jr.,
director, Navy affairs, Reserve Officers Association of the United States,
prepared statement.. 563Bischoff, Kenneth E., chairman, National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics, prepared statement.................
515Bosley, Dale, Marshal, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary...................................................... 393Bossler,
John D., prepared statement............................. 562Brown, Mark E.,
Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Commerce.............................. 261Bye, Dr. Raymond E., Jr.,
associate vice president for research, Florida State University, prepared
statement................... 555Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from
West Virginia, questions submitted
by................................................... 243Campbell, Hon. Ben
Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado: Prepared statements
William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe Questions submitted by
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeMDNM/447
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeMDNM/447
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeCape Arago Audubon Society Coos Bay, prepared statements 60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeM/Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeCarman, Gregory W., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of International
Trade, U.S. courts, the judiciary, prepared statement.......... 420Center
for Marine Conservation, prepared statements 60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeM/Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeCoast Alliance, prepared statement...............................
554Coastal Research and Education, Inc., prepared statement.........
570Coastal Waters Project, prepared statement.......................
568Colgate, Stephen R., Assistant Attorney General for Administration,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Justice........................................................
1Conservation Law Foundation, prepared statement..................
570Constantine, Thomas A., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Department of Justice.......................... 151 Prepared
statement........................................... 155Curtis, Adrian A.,
Director, Budget Staff, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Justice................................. 1Daley, William M., Secretary of
Commerce, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Commerce.............................. 261 Prepared
statement........................................... 265Defenders of
Wildlife, prepared statement........................ 570Delaney, Hon. Bruce
L., mayor-commissioner, Gainesville, FL, prepared statements 60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeDodson, Doreen, chair, Standing Committee on Legal Aid and
Indigent Defendants, American Bar Association, prepared
statement......................................................
578Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions
submitted by mmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeMDNM/447
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeDonnelly, Tony, Director of Budget and Personnel, Supreme Court
of the United States, the judiciary............................ 393Duff,
James C., Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of
the United States, the judiciary.............. 393Environment Hawaii,
prepared statement........................... 570Fish Forever, prepared
statement................................. 570Fish Unlimited, prepared
statement............................... 568Fishel, Andrew, Managing
Director, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 435Freeh,
Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice
William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe Prepared statement...........................................
185Fuller, William P., president, The Asia Foundation, prepared
statement...................................................... 572Garcia,
Terry D., Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce....................................................... 333Geisler,
Daniel F., president, American Foreign Service Association, prepared
statement................................ 525Georgetown University,
prepared statement........................ 579Gould, W. Scott, Chief
Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Commerce 261Grant, Glenn A., Esq., business
administrator, city of Newark, NJ, prepared
statement......................................... 543Gray, John, Associate
Deputy Administrator for Capital Access, Small Business
Administration.................................. 367Greenpeace, prepared
statement................................... 570Gulf Restoration Network,
prepared statements 60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe60435
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeM/Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeHantman, Alan M., AIA, Architect of the Capitol, prepared
statement...................................................... 396Heyburn,
Hon. John G., II, Chairman, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, U.S. courts, the
judiciary...................................................... 401
Biographical sketch.......................................... 401 Prepared
statement........................................... 404Hollings, Hon.
Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions submitted by
M/Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
FeNM/Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feommunications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fetatement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fet Company Institute, prepared statement
571____________________________________________________________________
Jollivette, Cyrus M., vice president for Government relations, University
of Miami, prepared statement
566____________________________________________________________________
Kennard, Hon. William E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Feirman, Federal Communications Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Femmission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe William E., Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission
435____________________________________________________________________
Biographical sketch
447____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
438____________________________________________________________________
Kennedy, Hon. Anthony M., Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United
States, the judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
394____________________________________________________________________
Kodiak Community Conservation Network, prepared statement
570____________________________________________________________________
Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, Small
Business Administration
367____________________________________________________________________
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, questions
submitted by
145____________________________________________________________________
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, questions submitted by
80_____________________________________________________________________
Levitt, Hon. Arthur, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
495____________________________________________________________________
Prepared statement
496____________________________________________________________________
Lorson, Frank, Chief Deputy Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, the
judiciary
393____________________________________________________________________
Mayer, Haldane Robert, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fe